Pathetic at Paleography -- Supplement
Keyword Search

Second edition responses below.

"ReligionFreeDeist" poses himself as an expert, inasmuch as he presents himself as some sort of teacher for the unenlightened who is worthy to share his thoughts on obscure topics. But he is really little more than a spermologos (seed-picker) who has picked up a few scraps of knowledge here and there which he doesn't have the ability to synthesize and use holistically. This was a pretty good example of the sort of error someone like him makes when they try to pose as a real expert but don't have the broad-based knowledge to be one.

In reality, I considered carefully beforehand whether "paleographic" was a proper word to use in this context. His charge that I was looking to use big words I didn't know is fairly laughable, considering that the articles I have written for the past 15 years contain words just as "big," if not bigger, including more than a few well outside his knowledge.

However, as I composed the original video, I had vague recollections that "paleographic" was appropriate, but since it was several years since I had last read most of the authors RFD names (and I have read them all, and more), and any other material on paleography (except Nongbri), I decided to check again. It wasn't hard to find several sources that offered an "expanded" definition of the field, and this extensive quote by Julian Brown (too long to use in entirety in the vid) was what ultimately convinced me that it was a viable word to use in this context. It comes from a text I found here, though it originally came from a book titled The Palaeographer's View. Some critical points are in bold.

Palaeography means, in the strict sense, the study of ancient handwriting, and its basic objects are these: first, to read ancient texts with accuracy; secondly, to date and localize their handwriting. As such it is a major component of two other more complex disciplines; of diplomatic, which studies all aspects of documents and records; and of paleography in the wider sense, which studies all aspects of books produced by hand (manuscripts). It is to the palaeography of Western Europe in the wider sense that this paper is intended as an introduction; but the handwriting of documents--a subject which the handbooks of diplomatic generally leave to palaeography--will be included in the account of Latin and vernacular handwriting on pp. 60-72. Books are complex things. Their purpose is the communication of thought, mainly through texts to be read but also through illustrations designed to expound or expand the message of the texts. Every text and every cycle of illustration has a meaning and a history of its own, the elucidation of which is work for historians of language, literature and art, who use many different kinds of evidence, both internal to the texts and illustrations themselves and external. As a student of books, the palaeographer must naturally understand these larger branches of history, and that for two reasons: first because they provide him with invaluable help in his own special tasks of reading, dating and localizing books; and secondly because his own conclusions about the dates and origins of particular books are often vital parts of the evidence used by historians of literature and art. They, in return, are under a similar obligation to understand the methods and potentialities of palaeography. The ultimate justification of palaeographical research lies in its power to contribute to the history of thought, and especially of the long historical process by which all classical and medieval literature and much of medieval art have been transmitted to the present.

The exact place of palaegraphy in the history of thought will be easier to define when we have considered what aspects of the manuscript book are the concern of palaeography and of no other discipline. Text and illustration apart, a book is still a complex physical object, with a long and often eventful history of its own; and there is much to be said for defining palaeography as the study of manuscript books as objects in themselves, and of their individual histories. The questions that palaeographers try to answer about a book are these. How, when, where, by whom, and for whom was it first made? How has it been altered since? Who have owned it and used it?

Handwriting, with which--as the name implies-palaeography began, is only the most obvious and important of a whole group of operations involved in the manufacture of a book; and the division of labour, especially in the later Middle Ages, often meant that several different craftsmen worked on the production of the same book. The organization of the book trade is, therefore, part of our subject; and so, when we turn to the fates of books after their manufacture, is the history of libraries, public and private.

The physical aspects of a manuscript book that have to be considered are these, in the order in which they come in the process of manufacture: (1) the writing material (papyrus, membrane, or paper); (2) its arrangement to form either a roll in which each sheet of material is fastened to the one before, or else a codex, in which groups of sheets are folded to form quires; (3) the ruling of the sheets in preparation for the writing (with subsequent numbering, etc., of the quires); (4) the writing of the main text, often by more than one scribe; (5) its correction and annotation, not necessarily by any of the scribes who wrote it; (6) the writing of titles etc. at the beginning and/or end of chapters, books and texts: which it is convenient to call rubrication; (7) the decoration, which may include several distinct operations, from the provision of simple coloured initials, through the painting of more elaborate illuminated and/or historiated initials and borders, to the drawing or painting of illustrations, generally called miniatures; (8) the binding of the book, which includes the method by which the quires of a codex are sewn together as well as the materials and decoration of the covers (most manuscripts have been rebound at least once since they were first written).

Once I saw that "correction and annotation" was part of the broader consideration of palaeographic study, I deemed it appropriate to use the word in my own descriptions of the issue. Note also this academic resource page, which lists "scholia" (which includes annotations) as a term used in palaeography. It is very clear that RFD made an embarrassing blunder by not being aware of this aspect of the field.

Some other notes...

  • RFD gullibly falls for the decontextualized quotes offered by the "anointed" website. This website is authored by a highly obsessed individual who operates as "jimbo" at theologyweb.com, where he is considered a laughingstock even by reasonable atheists there. He promotes such fringe ideas as that Jesus did not exist, and also uses the same tactic on the Bible; he is very fond, for example, of quoting Malachi 2:3. See my analysis of the context of each quote here.
  • Considering that Robert Price also endorses such fringe lunatics as Rene Salm, D. M. Murdock, and Stephen Huller, his endorsement of an idea of RFD's isn't much to be proud of.
  • In light of the above, I did not use the word "document" to indicate that the word was synonymous with "paleographic" but to roughly and popularly summarize what aspect of palaeographic data I had in mind. Indeed, it is once again RFD's failure to recognize the broader scope of the field which causes him to make this error in presumption.
  • Note that I challenged RFD to define the scope of "palaeography" in my comments section, and he refused to do so.
  • Finally, it is an insult to scholars like Wallace for RFD to suggest that they bow to "pressure" to endorse other ministries. I have challenged him to provide 5 examples, but do not expect him to do so, as I expect he simply pulled this claim out of his backside in frustration. No such "pressure" exists, and for RFD to impugn the character of these scholars by suggesting that they so severely compromise their principles is of such monumental offense that he ought to issue a personal apology to each and every one of them for the insult.

Second edition, additional notes:

  • RFD's evaluation of prison work is fairly standard for someone whose exposure to the field is limited. But he still has the story wrong. I didn't change my name because of that; I started using JPH as a writing name (nitpicker word: psuedonym) simply because of the nature of the employment. Yes, I frequently spoke to inmates as I do Skeptics. No, I didn't fear retaliation over that, because inmates are culturally attuned, as a whole, to recognize that for what it is.
  • RFD is clearly covering up that he was unaware of the broader definition of paleography until this time. His claim that he "avoided" giving a fuller explanation of it because "certain scholars use the term differently" is manifestly a non sequitur. If he were indeed aware of it earlier, he could easily have explained it either in his introduction video or in his first response to me. As it is, his claim is obviously an after-the-fact rationalization to explain away his lack of substance in posing as an expert source.
  • RFD's indication that I left out point 4 from Brown above, or edited Brown to deceive, is merely paranoid desperation, since I left it here in full in the supplement. It was edited in the video purely for space.
  • The bottom line: RFD is trying very hard to parse the word "evidence" to try to force an error. Although he claims I don't understand what paleography is, he admits that the sort of annotation I describe would indeed fall under the category of a paleographic phenomenon -- so he is now trying to claim I don't understand what "evidence" is. (See below.)
  • Finally, I note that RFD evaded all but one of my questions at the end, especially the fourth in which I questioned his idea that scholars were "pressured" to endorse ministries they did not actually approve of.
  • And: The charge that I was trying to mislead readers is manifestly without substance, since I provided an explanation of the evidence I had in mind. To see the absurdity of the charge, consider this replacement:

    Fifth, there is gastronomic (food) evidence that Paul is quoting someone else here. Usually when Paul quotes or refers to someone, he does say so (like in 1 Cor. 7:1), but in this case, the evidence shows that he originally wrote 1 Corinthians without 34-5, and then wrote in those words as a margin note, and they were later incorporated into the main text (this is called a “gloss”). The evidence for this is that several copies of 1 Corinthians have the words of 34-5 in a different place, after our verse 40. This makes perfect sense if Paul wrote these words in the margin and later scribes were not sure where it was supposed to go.

    The question never asked is, in what way would this "mislead" a reader? It wouldn't. The assumption is that my designating the evidence described as "paleographic" this somehow makes it appear more valid, or makes the argument stronger. Well, it doesn't; no more so than any other word like "gastronomic" makes it weaker. At the worst it gives pause to the terminally nitpicky; for most readers, though, it won't mean a thing; if they thought it erroneous, they'd simply assume a typo, and let it pass as they move on to the meat of the argument.

  • In the end, RFD's uncharitable and forced reading comes less of what is meant by "paleographic" and more of what is meant by "evidence". The profession of paleography evidently (if we believe RFD) has a very narrow definition of "evidence" which amounts only to what can be physically produced. Well, if I were presenting to a group of paleographers, or for a scholarly journal, then my usage would be cause for real complaint. But I'm not, so it isn't. In legal terms, and by standard definitions found in any dictionary, "evidence" doesn't simply mean what one can put one's hands on. It can refer to circumstantial data leading to an inference, which is the primary way I use it here (and, with my experience in managing a law library and working on legal documents, would be a natural way for me to use it). It can refer to a ground for belief. It can refer to something serving as a proof, or testimony entered into records. Obviously I am not saying all of these apply here; the point is that it is ridiculous to call "error" based on presumption of narrow usage of such a broad term.

    RFD seems to desperately need for people to admit error to him in order to feel he is serving his purpose. Well, I won't say "I was wrong" as he so badly needs, because I was not. I will say what I would have said freely from the start -- I was imprecise, I was writing in summary and popular language; and in that way I was doing nothing differently than I do for many venues I write for, including the Christian Research Journal. An article I recently wrote for them on the effects of technology on the brain contains terms and usages that I imagine would never pass for writing in the Journal of Neurology. But so what? Only a neurologist with a pompous and inflated sense of self-importance would go through popular magazines looking for places to make complaints about such things.

    That's all the concession RFD needs or deserves; and if he wishes to press the point, then it is equally possible to be just as uncharitable with his earlier words ("death blow" to the ministry, "pressure" to scholars) -- which he surreptitiously refused to address in his second response -- and rail upon those to demonstrate his blundering, his dishonesty, and his obsession with scoring reputation points. At YouTube, he has a raft of adoring, uncritical fans to praise him, but if he has the nerve, let's see him show up at the thread below and defend his nitpickery.

On RFD's 4 responses to the 4 questions, via ukchristian28:

  • Q1: Once again, he tries to rescue his hyperbole with uncontrolled parsing. He implies that Tekton should get a death blow even so, because I pose as an expert in the field. But nowhere do I pose as, or claim to be, an expert in the precise usage of terminology and classification of evidence within the field of paleography. Indeed, counting the use of the word in the film supp article, the words "paleography" and "paleographic" appear on my site's public access material only 4 times in over 1500 articles, in articles I have written myself (it is also used in soem guest-written articles). I can also add as evidence now, something I said in a subscription article in which I evaluated Brent Nongbri's arguments on P52:

    First, the basis for Nongbri’s case frankly cannot be evaluated by someone like me who does not have the resources or depth training necessary to decide who is right. I must turn to expert discussion, which I will do shortly.

    I thereafter refer readers to an evaluation by Daniel Wallace.

    Now of course, I am not saying RFD would have known of this article, since it is subscription access only. But it remains that it is only by way of vivid imagination -- and by expanding the category -- that anyone could validate the "death blow" evaluation. I would claim to be expert in apologetics, but that is a very broad field compared to the narrow field of paleography, and the even narrower concept of how "evidence" is defined within that field. (Indeed, since I have a degree in English, my "two period ellipsis" would be a far greater "death blow" to my reputation!) I also would say that the original vid allows others to say I claim to be expert in the disposition of the two passages in Paul. But the isolated use of the word "paleographic" does not constitute evidence that I claim expertise in paleography. If RFD had said, "this is a death blow to any claim Holding makes to be an expert in paleography," I would have agreed -- and quoted myself from the Nongbri article, then asked RFD if he'd like to continue to beat the imaginary dead horse some more.

    In contrast, RFD claims he wasn't posing as an expert on me. But no one tied the "death blow" to expertise in something until he did just now. Rather, it was tied to the simple making of an error. It is clear he is now trying very hard to parse his earlier injudicious hyperbole. Bottom line: He stuck his neck out too far, making too much of too little -- and is now having to parse, and then eat, his words.

  • Q2: The claim that he would not have used the pic had I asked in advance is ludicrous since he never wrote me or indicated to me that he planned to use a picture of any sort. How can I tell him not to use it if he doesn't tell me he wants to in the first place? That it comes up first in Yahoo is of no relevance. However, here is the sum of it: I am NOW asking him to remove it. If he has the principles he claims to, he will do so. He may remake the video as it is otherwise, or edit the old one using the approved picture.

    What is at issue here is not the appearance of the picture, as even RFD himself realizes (but his fans don't). If I thought the picture was bad, I would not have sent it to what I thought was a church asking me to speak. What is at issue here is theft of intellectual property. Richard Carrier knew better than to use that picture, which is why he used the one I provide on my own site. At the very least, it should have occurred to RFD that finding the picture only on sites hostile to me should arouse suspicion.

  • Q3: I will speak more of this subject in a Tekton Forge post on Tuesday, May 10. However, I do find it interesting that one of RFD's commenters, larkinclogger, is addressing ukchristian28 -- whom I supposed RFD accepted as a friend -- with vulgar language. I don't expect RFD to censor the comments, but if he doesn't call larkinclogger down for this, I'd have to ask: Is THAT what he considers "mature" behavior? If so -- I'll stay "immature," thanks.
  • Q4: It is rather perverse that RFD thinks my demand for evidence proves that I know the truth about the matter. His one example may or may not be true, and I don't care if it is, because only one example is far from sufficient to broadly tar hundreds of evangelical scholars -- especially since he doesn't even give any details whatsoever; we don't need a name if it is confidential, but some sort of description would be of some use.

    It seems RFD admits he can't back up this broad-brush statement -- and since that is so, we'll make sure it gets highlighted. Repeatedly. He wants to move on to other things, but I, for one, will not let any of these issues pass, and will continue to hammer on them in various ways through my various media outlets.

    There is no "free ride" for those who presume to try to use me to impress their peeps.

Here are some comments from RFD's peeps I was asked to comment on:

That was an utterly asinine set of questions. I'm not surprised you didn't answer them the first time. These questions feel a bit too much like a real objection being dragged down into drama in order to avoid the central thrust of the original video. --mediusnacht

Wrong. I took care of the central thrust and the questions are legit because they get to the heart of RFD's careless methodology.

In a second comment to JP, I said he should use terms correctly (e.g., paleography) if he wanted to retain a modicum of respect from scholars. He replied that he had the respect of scholars. I was tempted to ask him to give 5 citations from scholarly articles in peer reviewed journals that cite his work. I decided not to, though, recalling the old saying that if you wrestle with a pig, you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it. Yes, JP still has 99% disrespect from me. --Puchicas9

Hope Puchicas9 is hungry for crow. Being cited in peer reviewed journals is hardly the only way for scholars to show respect. It can also be done by means of verbal communication, and other written materials. But as it happens, my resume' lists these instances where scholars have appealed to my work or noted it in some respectful way:

  • Five different Tekton items -- two by a guest, three by J. P. Holding -- were cited positively as sources in Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd's The Jesus Legend.
  • Skeptic and Jesus Seminar member Robert Price published a rebuttal to the Tekton essay The Impossible Faith in his book Jesus is Dead, where he also responds to N. T. Wright and William Lane Craig.
  • Holding's article on inerrancy is referred to in a note in Daniel Block's Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention?
  • Holding is given thanks in Daniel Howard-Snyder's essay in Vol. 1 of Oxford Readings in Philosophical Theology.
  • One of Holding's rebuttals to an atheist is noted in Wayne House's The Jesus Who Never Lived.
  • Holding's article for Creation Ministries International on Biblical cosmology was referenced by Noel Weeks in his article, "Cosmology in Historical Context," Westminster Theological Journal 68 (2006).

If you ask me, that's not bad for a guy who does this all from a spare bedroom. (There are also many more citations by popular sources...in fact, while checking back on these, I found 3-4 new ones to add to the resume' -- thanks, Puchicas9!)

That's six -- and one even fits Puchicas9's exact demand, as it happens.

You can discuss this more here.