Yes, even now our critic is still at it, and still floundering around in the paste trying to make a respectful collage, even after five months of sticky fingers. As the level of response has become a bit ungainly, we're now putting it in a separate article, and this includes the latest, latest, latest responses.

I noted that the idea of an evolving state of mental deterioration by Jesus is flummoxed in that "there is no evidence that a condition as serious as the 'Christ complex' is an evolving condition." Our critic calls refer to this as an "obsolete psychiatric diagnosis" and argues that "delusional grandiosity is common among schizophrenics," referring the reader to an item at http://www.virtualcity.com/youthsuicide/sathewo2.htm#9015. This is quite an interesting item, but it does not even address the Christ complex, and despite the fluff, our critic (who incidentally is neither a psychologist, nor a psychiatrist, but a designer of Internet software) offers no proof that the diagnosis of this condition is "obsolete." The note referenced states: "The patient's attitude towards others is one of superiority. he exhibits fixed beliefs that he possesses unusual powers. He reports divine missions and may identify himself with well-known historical personalities (p. 88)." Superiority, unusual powers, divine missions, and identification with hisorical personalities -- but no reference at all to identification with divinity. Moreover, the article provides absolutely no evidence of this or any condition as something that slowly evolves; it identifies the potential condition of Jesus as a "save the world" mentality with no apparent idea regarding claims to be divine (it refers to Jesus in terms of a "super-entity," which is not up to the needed level of specificity); notes, in agreement with my comments on the Christ complex, that persons so afflicted "are generally devoid of empathy for others" (Jesus is not shown in the Gospels to fit this condition; he hobnobbed with the poor, the oppressed, and the destitute; the skeptic may think he "lacked empathy" for the likes of the Pharisees, but socially, the ruling class didn't get a lot of empathy as a whole!) and that the condition will "result in behaviors neurotically/delusionally believed to be altruistic when the opposite applies as was the case for Christians during the Inquisition." (Where's an example of this for Jesus?).

In the latest effort, our critic explains that he went out on the town and asked a "tenured psychology professor" who assured him that the Christ complex is "not in the APA's DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and that it was never in any previous edition either." This is the standard skeptical fallacy of moving the goalposts. The issue was never whether it appeared in any diagnostic manual (no one expects a separate entry for people who think they are Napoleon either); the issue is whether indeed there are people who think they are Christ or God, and how serious this delusion is compared to, say, someone who thinks they are merely a great football player (but not necessarily any particular one, just themselves with great skills), and whether such serious delusions can be or ever are gradual in their onset. The level of delusion and dissonance required is much greater for one with a divinity complex than it is for one who has lesser-scale delusions, and whether it makes the DSM-IV as a separate category is utterly beside the point. And as before, our critic resorts to claiming that Jesus did not always believe himself to be divinity, a matter we will return to below.

Latest, latest: Our critic now states, "The issue is: what is the relevant psychological diagnosis for the delusional (i.e. non-liar non-lord) horn of the Trilemma? Holding dares not answer my point that 'identification with divinity' is not a differential diagnosis against schizophrenia." Obviously our critic has no answer for the above and so must resort to re-positioning other arguments as though nothing has happened. The point has been answered, time and time again: Our critic has simply assembled a list of symptoms for this disorder, and applied them -- some legitimately, some by forcing them onto the texts -- then pronounced Jesus "nuts," ignoring the fact that the alleged symptoms are also "symptoms" of quite normal behavior. In this we are reminded of the "repressed memory syndrome" of some years ago in which it was confidently declared that many as 180 different symptoms could be indications of repressed memories of sexual abuse. The fact that these alleged symptoms were so all-inclusive that they made it possible to diagnose everyone alive as a victim of repressed memories was somehow missed. Likewise, for our critic's argument to work he must produce examples of unique symptoms not otherwise explicable by normal behavior (the "claim to divinity" as the subject thereby excluded, for otherwise the question is simply enormously begged), and he has yet to do this (more below). Citing others who claim to be God or Jesus is therefore beside the point.

In the matter of the condition slowly evolving, our critic challenges me "to cite any authority saying schizophrenia is more likely to have sudden onset than to develop over time." Whose job is this to prove? Our critic bears the burden of proof in this regard, as it is he who makes the claim that Jesus fits the mold; but even if he proves that gradual onset is possible in such a context, it proves nothing without a begged question assumed and without corollary data and an explained means of falsification. But indeed, we will see that such begging of questions does not disturb our critic in the least.

Latest, latest: It is now said, "Holding yet again misunderstands the conditions for the logical validity of the Trilemma argument. The Trilemma argument is only valid if Holding can positively demonstrate that Jesus COULD NOT have been delusional. In the absence of such a demonstration, the Trilemma argument fails to prove its thesis, and Jesus' divinity remains (at best) an open question." This is abject assumptive question-begging. One may as well say that the Trilemma is only valid if we can positively prove that Jesus was not a space alien, a time traveller, or whatever hits our fancy. The burden is totally on the critic to effect a sound diagnosis (which he has yet to do) and trying to pretend that the burden is elsewhere will not serve the purpose. We are obliged to explain matters beyond reasonable doubts -- not all possible doubts that can be invented on the spur of the moment.

Moreover: "Holding does not dare let his readers see that I in fact 1) already quoted a reference work as saying that the schizophrenic 'manifests an insidious and gradual reduction in his external relations and interests', and 2) already nailed him for ignoring this citation." One wonders if our critic pays attention. This source, the Encyclopedia Britannica (again, a great source for third graders doing research on penguins, but not for detailed work on psychology), was and is quoted below and the phrase is associated with the "simple" type of schizophrenia, not the "new and improved" type which involves delusions of grandeur, etc. of the sort that our critic has been arguing since day 1 are exhibited by Jesus. So is he now saying Jesus is the "simple" kind? Well, which is it? If so, we want proof of "an insidious and gradual reduction in Jesus' external relations and interests" that does not involve taking what is otherwise normal human behavior and blow it into excess, or does not beg the question (i.e., the undoubted example, dealt with below, of Jesus' relations with his family). But that is all we are offered, as it turns out, is a "few hints" blown into excess:

1. "Jesus seems to (at least initially) have been a disciple of John the Baptist. A Jesus always convinced of his divinity would have been less likely to ever have been anyone's disciple." Why is this the case? No reason is given, much less is it proved that Jesus was a disciple of John (this is sometimes argued, but it is never stated in the text, and no such relationship is described in the text; the only clue is that Jesus' original message of repentance is the same as John's, though this was also a message of the OT!). However, even if it were true, which is possible, our critic is utterly and obviously not aware of the necessity in a collectivist society of aligning one's self with a fictive kinship group; the goal of the teacher-disciple relationship was socialization, and the ability to identify one's self with a particular teacher. Becoming a disciple of John, or entering the fictive kinship group of a John the Baptist, would have been useful for a Messianic programme because ancient persons were identified in terms of their teachers, and students took on the identity of their schools (sort of like saying one is from Harvard tends to make an impression). However, it is unlikely that Jesus was John's disciple, for Jesus is not once identified in terms of being John's student; rather, it is asked, "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?", indicating no connection with a known personality like John the Baptist or any other teacher. No doubt our critic will find a way to make Jesus mentally ill anyway, but such is the flexibility of our critic's methodology.
2. "Jesus seems to have been estranged from his family. Such estrangement could have been produced by his growing delusions of divinity, and would have been unlikely if he always had true knowledge of his own divinity." This judgment is addressed below.
3. "Jesus was at times secretive about his special nature. Such secrecy would be consistent with Jesus initially not being convinced of his divinity." This is also answered below.

Of course in not one of these cases are we shown that Jesus "manifests an insidious and gradual reduction in his external relations and interests." It is never shown, just assumed, to be insiduous; it is never shown, just assumed, to be gradual; it is never shown, just assumed, that these behaviors, explicable fully and reasonably on other social grounds (see below) may be paired with symptoms uniquely and inseperably tied to mental illness. Once again, our critic must presume to insert factors of diagnosis not found in the text and has therefore failed to meet the burden of proof.

On the last point, about finding such conditions in Jesus, our critic accuses me of not quoting material in context, but still provides no examples of such behavior in Jesus one way or the other, and does not show how the alleged misquoting in any way muddles his argument.

Latest latest: "Holding here does not dare let his readers see that I in fact pointed out that the 'diagnostic criteria match so well the reported behaviors of Jesus' and that he 'does not try to dispute the diagnostic match' with those criteria -- grandiose identity, role, and ability." There is nothing to dispute. The criteria cited are either so vague or general as to include everyone in the category, or else beg the question by assuming that a high opinion of identity by Jesus must be the result of mental illness rather than reflecting a genuine claim, which is the very point at issue. In other words, our critic's arguments are worthless question-begging and generalization.

As for the idea that lunacy is "a more parsimonious explanation than divinity," this is standard skeptical hand-waving, and to the extent that our critic must continually add things to the text to make his case, or ignore surrounding social data, or dismiss it anachronistically (more below), the label of "parsimony" for his thesis vanishes over an ever-growing horizon of plausibility and excuses for why the data does not fit what is written, especially since the social data we present showing why Jesus acted as he did in his culture, then the rule of parsimony would declare that, rather than Jesus being mentally deluded, he was simply normal and acting in the typical fashion of the time period in question. Since the latter is far more likely than the former in general, the reasons for Jesus' alleged idiosyncracies are more parsimoniously explained away by the social data inherent to the period rather than that he was "insane" to some varying degree (i.e. "honestly mistaken"). The critic shoots himself in the foot with his own sprig of parsimony!

The article referenced also provides this helpful outline. It reports the work of a scholar of psychology who identified:

...three major forms of grandiosity associated with "paranoid psychoses:" (1) "grandiose identity" (such as claiming "that they were God or Jesus Christ," more rarely "the Holy Ghost," including other famous individuals, and hallucinations and/or hearing voices may be present. (2) "grandiose role" (such a believing that one has a "save the world" mission or mandate), and (3) "grandiose ability" (such as someone having a "high opinion of his abilities and wisdom" or " believes he has some special talent or genius," which may be manifested by "I can control people's minds" as "X" somewhat claimed to do.

Of course, as I noted long ago, and have noted time and time again, a person with such delusions would inevitably suffer failure to a considerable extent, long before it came time to be crucified. As we have seen and will see, even as our critic provides more of an update, the only way to hammer the Jesus square peg into this round hole is to pick and choose what we like from the Gospels (dismissing the rest as exaggeration, facbrication, etc as needed) and fill in the gaps with unevidenced speculation for the rest.

I next noted:

Moreover, if it were, one would expect an increase in mental derangement resulting in a sliding scale of claims; yet this is not what we see at all -- the claims of Jesus are the same, and just as clear, from the beginning of his minstry to the end. The idea of a "growing delusion" is a fantasy that is unsupported by any of the data in the Gospels.

Our critic responds by appealing yet again to previous elephants hurled:

While any one gospel would have tried to show Jesus's claims as consistent throughout his ministry, the fact remains that from the earliest gospel (Mark) to the latest (John) there is a discernable progression in the elaborateness of the gospel accounts of Jesus's divinity claims, miracles, and resurrection appearances.

There are three hurled elephants here:

1. The implication that the consistency is a fabrication of the Gospel writers, supported by nothing other than the begged question that that is what must have happened. Our critic responds by saying that his actual stance (which he apparently cannot keep consistent with his arguments, or more likely, does not fix in any form so as to be able to shuffle the deck when one dealt hand fails) is that "the gospels are probably the result of not necessarily fabrication, but of some combination of misinterpretation, exaggeration, rationalization, delusion, and deception," a combo claim that sounds effective when hurled in elephantine form, but indicates an unwillingness and an inability to break down the Gospel records into each of these categories, and a mere attempt to sound as though some authoritative and reasonable thesis is being presented, when in fact, it is no more than several begged questions rather than just one.

   Latest, latest: Our critic now breaks down some Gospel episodes into one-word categories, but provides no argumentation (though some are covered below), begging off with the excuse that "it is of course impossible to say precisely what combination explains each element of the gospel stories, but that in no way makes the composite explanation implausible." Implausible, no; useless as an explanation, yes. Apparently it is seen as justified, when it is thrown in the air to say that "walking on water" is an "exaggeration", and that is disproved, it is next allowable to put it into some other category. Such arguments of convenience undoubtedly win cheers from the skeptical crowd, but not from those who follow sound argumentative principles.

2. The idea that Mark's gospel offers a Jesus with a lesser degree of claim to divinity, which we have already shown to be untrue, and which our critic makes no effort to refute (though see more on divine claims below; for a bit more on John and Mark's respective Christologies, see here). In the latest report, our critic ignores the link, makes hash of the idea that I supposedly allowed that Jesus did not spread around his identity, even as it was spread around anyway -- actually the "degree" here is in terms of level of divinity, not in terms of openness; but more on not spreading identity below.

   Latest, latest: It is said, "Nothing in the linked article refutes (or even addresses!) my point that in the early gospel Mark Jesus is reluctant for his special nature to be known," which is a dodge, since the charge being answered is that Mark's gospel offers a Jesus with a lesser degree of claim to divinity, not the issue of Jesus' "reluctance" which is addressed below. In other words, it's that same tactic of repositioning old arguments, which our critic apparently feels safe to do, thinking his readers will not be able to keep track by now.

3. The idea that Mark was the first gospel, and John the latest; this point I addressed by giving a link to my study on the Q/Marcan priority thesis (which, as predicted, our critic ignored, and now merely declares to be a "dead meme" and therefore not open to discussion, because it is held by authoritative sources like Encyclopedias!). Our critic continues to ignore this point, and quotes me as follows: "[to disagree with the scholarly consensus] requires a certain degree of ego anyway..." The bracketed words are his own idea; the actual sentence, in an essay written against G. A. Wells, says, "Of course, to be a Christ-myther requires a certain degree of ego anyway." Our critic has now stooped to the highest levels of dishonesty in his frustration. The Christ-myth is not to be compared in terms of consensus to the dispute over Q/Marcan priority, which is in fact undergoing serious reconsideration in the scholarly literature, as is shown in the linked article our critic has little choice but to continue to ignore.

   Moreover, our critic has now added a claim of "discernible progression" with regards to miracles and resurrection appearances, also a claim entirely without basis and given no support. Again I repeat:

   The idea that "Jesus never calls himself Christ/Messiah" flounders on a few considerations: there are plenty of places where Jesus takes a prerogative indicating such a position, even prior to the triumphal entry, which is clearly a messianic act -- claming to forgive sins (2:5); enacting the role of divine Wisdom by eating with sinners (2:15), claiming to be the Son of Man (2:28, 8:31, 9:9, etc.), walking on water, which the OT says that only God can do (4:35ff; cf. Job 9:8, Ps. 77:19); implicitly acknowldging Peter's identification by not rebuking it (8:29ff), saying that one's soul is dependent on one's reaction to him (8:35) and that God is his Father, and that he will come with God's angels (8:38), a self-reference to the Messiah (9:41), again saying belief in him is paramount to eternal life (9:42). Even in Mark's "action" gospel wher Jesus says comparatively little about anything, let alone about himself, there are ample indications that he knew and proclaimed his own position.

Our critic now adds some arguments from his own book (quoting himself as an authority in essence!) in which he offers these examples:

In order of writing, the gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrected appearances become increasingly elaborate. Original Mark claims an empty tomb but describes no appearances. Matthew says simply that the two Marys and later the Eleven "saw him" but "some were dubious". The Longer Ending of Mark says Jesus appeared "in a different form" to two disciples, and simply "appeared" to the Eleven. Luke elaborates on both of these episodes, building the latter into an account that approaches the full Doubting Thomas story finally told in John.

The progression here is only in our critic's imagination. Mark is exempt from such analysis (other than the begged question yet again of Marcan priority, apparently a "dead meme" off limits for critical discussion by virtue of our critic's vested authority in encyclopedias) as it is far from clear that the ending of Mark was the original as it now stands, and the longer ending is too late to be given consideration -- that our critic sees fit to include it shows a remarkable lack of scholarly discipline. In terms of Matthew, here we see again the same illicit interpretation used by Richard Carrier: as we noted there, "Matt. 28:17 could in no way serve as a rhetorical defense of this nature. Matt. 28:17 does not say that some 'didn't believe'; it said that some 'doubted' -- doubted what? The answer is given in that Jesus addresses them with the Great Commission. As Donald Hagner notes ['Gospel, Kingdom, and Resurrection in the Synoptic Gospels,' Life in the Face of Death, 114] the verb used here points not to belief or uncertainty, but to hesitation and indecision. They did not doubt the presence or veracity of the resurrected Jesus; they wondered, rather, in the face of a heretofore unexpected event (a unique resurrection before the final judgment) what was to be done next, and that is why Jesus gives them instructions on exactly what to do next: spread the word!" In terms of Luke and John, by "elaboration" our critic presumably means, more details are given. That may be so (in any continuum of time-space events, it is always possible to recount greater or fewer exemplars, and hence on the scale of the Gospels [to say nothing of relevant compositional constraints] this is useless to appeal to for any "progression" theory), but none of the details adds any degree of elaboration to the actual event of the resurrection. (Our critic fails to understand that addition of details does not of necessity constitute a conceptual elaboration, which is our entire point here!) Resurrection was a Jewish concept with fixed central ideas, at the core, the fixed idea of a physical body restored from death. Luke and John add nothing that Matthew would not, in actually claiming a resurrection, already indicate via the conceptual template of a resurrection in Judaism. Luke's eating of fish, and John's Thomas touch, are expectations that would be part of the package of a resurrected body. Moreover, our critic throws this idea in the air without details: Does he think Luke elaborated on Matthew directly, and John on Luke? If he thinks there is a progression, then that implies that one built on the other knowingly. And if he thinks Luke built on Matthew, that scrums the Q hypothesis that pairs with Marcan priority, a thesis he clings to like dryer lint. And if he thinks John built on Luke, he also stands against the standard line of the scholarship he uses. The "progression" thesis is quite imagimative, but completely devoid of substance. It is merely a theory thrown in the air and the data hammered to fit. Finally, let it be added that if this progression theory has any validity, one must date 1 Cor. 15, whose quantity-substance is far more significant than the Gospel records, later than the Gospels! (On this our critic throws the "1 Cor 15 teaches a spiritual" canard in the mix, which as we show here is manifestly false.)

Latest, latest: Our critic says:

1. "It's not clear whether Holding understands that Original Mark ends with 16:8, and that 16:9-20 is indeed the later 'Longer Ending' that I referred to. His confusion allows him to simply ignore my point that the earliest copies of the earliest gospel (Mark) described no resurrection appearances." If this is so, it is because our critic cannot read clearly; I specifically refer to the "longer ending" above. Our critic also ignores a link provided in this essay (below) to material showing that the original ending of Mark was lost and therefore Mark 16:9-20 cannot be brought into evidence in this matter.
2. On Matt. 28:17, it is said, "Holding has no basis for a definitive conclusion that Jesus' resurrection isn't here being described as having been doubted." Yes we do, as clearly stated: the verb points to hesitation and indecision, and our critic has no answer for this. "More to the point, Holding dares not even address the fact that Matthew's appearances only to the two Marys and the Eleven are indisputably less elaborate than those in the later Luke and John." What dare? This is already answered above conceptually with the point about the nature of resurrection body. Apparently our critic is unable to reason inferentially, but then we have this "answer":
3. "It's ludicrous to imply that ANY meager account of an empty tomb or a vague and selective appearance would have the same evidentiary value as a detailed descriptions of e.g. a skeptical inspection of Jesus' wounds." It is also ludicrous to assume that the purpose of the Gospel accounts is to provide "evidentiary value" of the sort demanded by our critic. The Synoptic Gospels were written as biographies of Jesus for people who already believed and who had already accepted the truth of the Resurrection. Our critic blithely assumes that the Gospels were written to "convince him" (or whomever) of the validity of Jesus' resurrection, when in fact they were never intended for that purpose at all. We can hardly give our critic any credence here when he does not even grasp the purpose of this literature within its context and assumes that their use for evangelism today mirrors their use in the first century. Moreover, it is absurd to appeal to amount of detail reported as meaningful in the first place. As noted, ancient writers were subject to certain physical and material constraints (see here for details in their reportage. The resurrected Jesus was present on earth for 40 days; each writer would have had hours of reports to choose from, and little space to do it.

Moreover, it seems that the "progression" is tailored and adjusted as needed to suit the thesis. We are told:

In the earliest gospel (Mark), Jesus never calls himself Christ/Messiah ("anointed"), is reluctant for his special nature to be known, and (as he does in Matthew) despairs on the cross. (By contrast, in the later Luke and John, Jesus asserts he is Christ, and confidently assures a co-crucified criminal of their impending ascension.)

As noted above, and still again, our critic ignores the very definitive claims to divinity listed in Mark -- and actually, these things in Mark are much more decisive than the claim to be "Messiah," which was not in Judaism of the time equated with the idea of God incarnate anyway! (Not that it matters: It is wrong to say Jesus "never" calls himself Christ in Mark -- Peter's accepted confession in Mark 8:29; Mark 9:39-41, 13:6, and 14:61-2 amount to such an admission, and Mark 15:32 shows that the people were aware that Jesus was claiming the title!) And an "impending ascension" (which is not an accurate descriptor anyway) is no divine claim! Where is our critic getting his Christology from? Certainly not from NT scholarship! The bottom line: Anyone familiar with the social background data, with the contextual meanings of the words used by Jesus of himself, sees no such progression within the Gospels, though we will see later our critic straining mightily to divest these claims of their contextually-anchored meaning. We have also answered the alleged matter of "despair" on the cross; see below for more obfuscations by our critic.

Latest, latest: Our critic confidently claims to have answered the matter of divinity claims (see below). On an "impending ascension" it is now said: "I never said Jesus' confidence in his imminent salvation was a 'divine claim'; I simply said that it contrasted with his despair on the cross noted in the two earliest gospels." Que pasa? What this has to do with "impending ascension" is difficult to say. We still don't know what gumball machine our critic gets his Christology from. Then: "Holding here dares not dispute that the confident-on-the-cross Jesus in the later Luke and John contrasts with the despairing Jesus in the earlier Mark and Matthew." I already have "dared" this; Jesus is not despairing at all in Mark and Matthew (see below). A new category is now added, "the impressiveness of the healing miracles," but not quantified; presumably this is expanded in our critic's book, which we have now looked at and found nought but the same begged questions and fallacious anachronizing.

In response to my note that our critic's arguments are "not supported by our critic in terms of providing a parallel in psychology," our critic pulls up -- hold your breath! -- an article from the Britannica encyclopedia (that all-around great source for third-grade papers on penguins and wildebeests -- our critic complains about ad hominem here, but the simple fact is that this is hardly the sort of source a serious researcher would use at this level of discussion!) which says about schizophrenia:

"The simple or undifferentiated type of schizophrenic manifests an insidious and gradual reduction in his external relations and interests. [..] The paranoid type, which usually arises later in life than the other types, is characterized primarily by delusions of persecution and grandeur combined with unrealistic, illogical thinking, often accompanied by hallucinations. These different types of schizophrenia are not mutually exclusive, and schizophrenics may display a mixture of symptoms that defy convenient classification. There may also be a mixture of schizophrenic symptoms with those of other psychoses, notably those of the manic-depressive group.

More is to come, but presumably, they want to put Jesus in the "paranoid" category -- if so we want some proof of "delusions of persecution" (as opposed to cases of actual persecution -- like a case where Jesus thought Peter was out to get him!) and "unrealistic, illogical thinking" as well as hallucinations. (In response our critic admits that "Jesus obviously was persecuted" and now backpedals furiously, saying, "I'm not saying that some separate evidence for Jesus' being unrealistic and hallucinatory therefore establishes him as a schizophrenic."-- well, than what's the point of quoting someone about delusions of persecution? -- as he covers himself with a non-argument that "actual persecution is of course no guarantee that one does not suffer from paranoid schizophrenia" -- and claims that I have his "argument backwards" for he is "not saying that some separate evidence for Jesus' being unrealistic and hallucinatory therefore establishes him as a schizophrenic." Well, if not, then why quote the article on this point, or why not quote it and admit that that phrase is not being taken into consideration? What is happening here is that our critic simply threw up a quote from the encyclopedia uncritically -- as he has done with numerous sources -- hoping to land one blow, any blow, with his skeptical cohorts -- and now has to backpedal furiously in order to avoid defending himself. Indeed, this is shown in that here, for the first time, our critic shows his hand, which we have anticipated: "...I'm saying that if we reserve judgment about the truth of the reports about Jesus, and instead can show that they are consistent with paranoid schizophrenia, then it becomes a simple matter of asking which explanation is more parsimonious: divine incarnation or mental illness? Since mental illness is obviously more parsimonious than divine incarnation, Holding's burden is to show that the reports about Jesus are *inconsistent* with paranoid schizophrenia." That is indeed what we have been doing, but the entire premise from our critic rests upon the begged question (turned via positive spin-doctoring into a matter of a "more parsimonious explanation!") that no such thing as a divine incarnation is possible (which our critic denies, even as it clearly underlies all of his arguments). To that end, in the service of a "more parsimonious explanation," do we see our critic spinning out every event possible into a sign of mental illness (and calling them signs "consistent with" delusion, in which case, you can go out on the street now and find behaviors "consistent with" delusion all over the place), while dispensing with contrary or insufficient indications of data by any illicit means possible. This is not "parsimony" by any definition, and it is amazing how complex the explanations have to become in order to save the "most parsimonious" explanation! We shall see more of this as we proceed.)

It is now asked: "Does Holding dare declare how different the evidence would have to be to convince him that Jesus was instead delusional?" Yes, I do: Our critic needs at least to provide 1) symptoms uniquely associated with delusion and not with normal human behavior; 2) evidence explaining why various social factors (ritual uncleanness associated with delusion in the ancient world, for example) somehow managed to be circumvented where Jesus was concerned. That would be for starters. If our critic can do that (and he cannot, except by inserting things into the text and anachronizing), he may have a start.

Hallucinations and delusions, although not invariably present, are often a conspicuous symptom in schizophrenia. The most common hallucinations are auditory: the patient hears (nonexistent) voices and believes in their reality. Schizophrenics are subject to a wide variety of delusions, including many that are characteristically bizarre or absurd."

No record of this appears in the Gospels, of course; we do have places where the voice of God is heard, but there, others hear the voice too. Presumably skeptics would posit the usual convenient "group hallucination" theory for that one. Our critic has no answer for that, but does as we expected beg the question by assuming that Jesus' encounter with Satan and apocalyptic fervor are the result of delusion. The scent of begged question is overwhelming!

Latest, latest: It is said, "I'm not familiar with any 'group hallucination' theory, but a more plausible theory is misinterpretation, exaggeration, and mythologizing." Obviously, whatever is most convenient will be taken, if one fails, take another. On Satan, et al. the same old "more parsimonious explanation" explanation is dragged up (and remains a begged question as it stands) -- perhaps our critic can come up with a "more parsimonious explanation" for the origins of Christianity in light of adverse social factors. If he cannot, then supernatural origins for the faith remain the "most parsimonious explanation" even by our critic's standards, thereby lending credibility to all else recorded in the Gospels.

Anyways down to another specific:

Of particular interest is the variant of schizophrenia called paraphrenia. "Kraepelin believed that paraphrenia was associated with paranoid schizophrenia and was marked by persistent delusions and hallucinations (1), but it did not show the characteristic deterioration of schizophrenia or the full characteristics of delusional disorder (6). Personality decay is minimal (7), and emotional rapport is well retained (8), but despite its relatively benign features (9), paraphrenia is as chronic as schizophrenia (10). Nowadays, a case like this is often diagnosed as "atypical psychosis," "psychosis not otherwise specified," or even "schizoaffective disorder" (11)." [From Ravindran, "Paraphrenia Redefined", http://www.cpa-apc.org/Subscriptions/Archives/1999/Mar/munro.htm.]

This is another intersting article, and it is just as interesting that our critic fails to quote the next sentence: "These vague categories do not lend themselves well to research."(!) The article also advises that more research is needed in this area -- our critic would do well to take care in using such works definitively! But more than that, let's look at some of what else this article says, but which our critic ignores in preference for a sound bite. Under the heading of diagnostic criteria, it reads (these criteria are evaluated as the article progresses):

Associated Features: The illness is associated with distress and agitation, and irrational behaviour may appear as delusions become more vivid and judgement lessens. Patients may accuse others of persecution, complain to the authorities, or occasionally show aggression to imagined pursuers.

One would of course want to define "distress, agitation, and irrational behavior" here, and ask where this is shown with Jesus (the article finds this in 81.3% of cases). Critics sometimes appeal to the cleansing of the Temple; if this prophetic demonstration reflects mental disorder of this sort, then protestors in front of nuclear power plants and members of PETA also need help; though see as well here. (Our critic responds to this by saying, "This analogy fails utterly, as such protests do not get the protester killed." Whether they get someone killed is beside the point, though in that case, one may ask about the sanity of American Revolutionary soldiers, for example, who fought for their freedom knowing there was an excellent chance they would be killed. At the same time, our critic assumes upon the ancients certain values and judgments about the value and purpose of life that are held only by moderns; the ancients had no qualms about dying sacrificially for a cause they believed in, and if this is a sign of mental illness, then perhaps Socrates was mentally ill as well.) There is no scale of what critics would call Jesus' delusions becoming more vivid, and his judgment becoming less; Jesus is reported to be just as rational and calm (if not calmer) from one end of the Gospels to the other. Jesus accused no one of persecuting him (the article associates this with 96.9% of cases); the closest we get to this is "Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?" -- and that was to people who were actually persecuting him, not by his imagination. Jesus didn't complain to the authorities; he was victimized by them, and kept silent before his accusers -- this is the opposite condition! Finally there is no indication of aggression to "imagined pursuers." Our critic does not defend these remaining points.

Latest, latest: It is now said, re being killed,, "the point is precisely that there is a huge difference between someone who engages in run-of-the-mill civic protest and someone who consciously pursues a course of religious martyrdom." The point our critic misses is that the general paradigm of protest is the same regardless of the potential results; in each case, one measures the potential results against the potential long-term social value and makes a decision. Being part of a PETA protest may result in long-term social ostracization, unemployability, and decline in life quality; ancients who protested social conditions -- from Socrates to Spartacus -- knew well in advance that such actions had their own potential price, and that it happened to be death at times does not permit us to bigotedly accuse them of mental disorder; the ancients as collectivists would have been quite willing to die as individuals for a greater good. Our critic irrelevantly points out that only 25,000 of 230,000 soliders in the Continental Army died (irrelevant, because every one of those 230K went into the war knowing that death was a real possibility) and then plays the usual skeptical bigot-game of comparison to kamikaze pilots (as if they had a choice anyway: either do the mission, or suffer shame and disgrace in an honor-based society like Japan's where such loss of honor was as good as death -- to say nothing of the threat to one's family by a tyrannical emperor if one did not go on the mission), and finally states that "there is still a big difference between dying for one's nation and dying for one's belief in one's own divinity," without explaining why, in this context, it makes a difference and supports his case.

Also: Regarding ancient willingness to die sacrificially, it is said, "Modern people are also often willing to risk their lives for their causes, and indeed in the twentieth century multitudes of people died doing so. Holding's vague talk about values serves only to obfuscate the original point here: that Jesus' behavior is consistent with 'distress and agitation, and irrational behavior appear[ing] as delusions become more vivid and judgment lessens'." We shall see further on that our critic will continue to dismiss our data on the social paradigms of the ancient world as "vague", which translated means, "I do not have a clue about how the ancient world actually operated, and have no inclination to do the necessary homework, so I will simply dismiss the arguments as 'vague' and move on as though nothing has happened to undermine my case, merely reasserting my original point as though it has not been addressed and refuted." Indeed we will see further on that even scholars in this field will be merely dismissed as spinning their wheels. As for moderns ("multitudes") risking their lives, this only supports our point. Were all of these people schizophrenic? Once again, the issue is not whether one can identify behaviors in Jesus "consistent with" delusion -- by the broad sweep of allowed identifying symptoms, one can go out to the A and P and find hundreds of people showing symptoms "consistent with" delusion -- the issue is whether one can find data that clearly and uneqiovocally and uniquely shows delusion, without resorting to adding to or manipulating the texts or waving away the relevant social data. On this point our critic continues to conspicuously fail.

Age of Onset: Traditionally thought to be middle or old age, but this is unproven.

Course: A chronic illness, ameliorated but not cured by treatment.

The first criteria eventually was found not to be indicative at all. The second is of no measure here since Jesus obviously was never subject to psychological analysis or treatment.

Impairment: Intellectual functioning is unimpaired. Daily living, occupational activity, social functioning, and quality of marriage are likely to deteriorate during exacerbations.

Challenge here: Show that there was deterioration in Jesus' daily living, etc. activities that would match this. Our critic replies: "Jesus abandoned his profession of carpentry for a life of wandering asceticism. His ministry caused strained relations with his family that even the gospels felt obliged to report." How does this show impairment in any of these areas? For one thing, the "strain" was clearly only from the family's side, not from Jesus'. (Our critic demands that I "substantiate this assertion that the strain was 'clearly' one-sided." It's quite simple: The family is the one claiming Jesus is out of order; Jesus does not reply to them in kind or say that they are the ones out of order. Anything beyond that must be added to the text, which is exactly what our critic does.) As for abandoning a profession, does this mean we are mentally ill when we change careers or lifestyle? Is asceticism a sign of mental illness? (It is now said, "It easily might, if we choose itinerant asceticism over a stable profession because of the voices we hear in our heads," which once again merely begs the question, no doubt in favor of the usual hand-waved response of the "more parsimonious explanation" which is enlisted as an excuse to add whatever is needed to the text or to history to make it more parsimonious.) We shall see shortly that our critic, apparently now so desperate as to resort to such a bigoted judgment, thinks so indeed! Nevertheless, none of this even so reflects a "deterioration" in the named areas, except by virtue of a modernistic value judgment that assumes that living in a nice house is a sure sign of mental health order (a judgment our critic denies making, though it is clearly made by means of the judgment upon asceticism). One would also ask for detailed qualification proving that a move from carpenter to travelling teacher is somehow "deterioration," other than by making bigoted and modernistic value judgments. Do those who leave a comfortable home and join the Peace Corps to dig wells in Africa count as mentally ill? It is now said, "Jesus' own family and peers evidently considered it a deterioration," which only means at best that they made the same irrational judgment our critic has -- one may note that the family of Jesus apparently did not make this judgment following observation of Jesus himself, as they come from outside looking for him!), and, "Holding is quite mistaken if he thinks that a child's choice of poverty and childlessness is distressful only to 'bigoted and modernistic' parents," which doesn't answer any point given at all. Finally: "Holding once again calls me a name ('bigoted') for daring to disagree with anyone from ancient times." Simply put, bigotry is indeed what our critic expresses, as he time and time again resorts to making modern value judgments upon ancient peoples. Bigotry is nothing less than intolerance for the views of others, with the implicit value judgment that one's own views and lifestyles are superior. This our critic is clearly guilty of, and his denials echo without any authority. It is further said on the Peace Corps idea, "If they do it because of what we can explain as auditory and visual hallucinations, and if it is a path to martyrdom rather than a two-year adventure, then yes," which is once more no more than begging the question that what Jesus experienced was indeed hallucinatory rather than genuine revelation.)

Complications: Some paraphrenia cases appear to deteriorate to schizophrenia. In elderly patients, dementia may sometimes supervene.

Obviously the critic would say that Jesus was one of the "didn't deteriorate" cases.

Predisposing Factors: Deafness, social isolation, migrant status, and other severe stressors may play a part. It is possible, though evidence is uncertain, that premorbid paranoid and schizoid personality disorders occur more commonly with paraphrenia than by chance. Celibacy, lower-than-normal marital rates, and reduced fertility have been mentioned, possibly indicating abnormal personality traits.

We know of no data indicating that Jesus suffered any of these things (other than celibacy, which was also practiced by the Qumranites and by John the Baptist), though I do not doubt that desperate skeptics will fill in gaps as needed. And indeed our skeptic does, as he refers to the above thusly: "[C]ave-hiding fanatics and a similarly delusional preacher." It is telling that our critic is forced to resort to bigoted ad hominem here, extending the diagnosis of mental illness to as many as is needed to make his case! So we wonder now as well: Are, for example, ascetic Buddhist monks in their mountain temples "hiding fanatics"? The core of this methodology is becoming crystal clear: Our critic, a skeptic, merely declares all or as much religious belief as necessary to be indications of delusion! So we put the question: Is it possible at all to live a life of religious or other asceticism and not be declared mentally deluded? Evidently not! (In the latest, our critic merely quotes another source that calls the Qumranites extremist, redeclares his bigoted value judgments, and pawns off upon ideas that there are "degrees of delusionality" -- never once providing supporting evidence of delusion in any of these cases beyond the begged questions.)

Sex Ratio: Uncertain, but seems to become more common in females with advancing age.

Skeptics would of course put Jesus in the "less common" category, which is fine in context.

Familial Pattern: There is a low frequency of schizophrenia in families of paraphrenia patients, suggesting that there is little or no genetic link between the 2 disorders.

This is fine as well; either side will take it that there was no sign of disorder in Jesus' family.

Among further relevant delineations made:

Many of these patients show a degree of personality and interpersonal incompetence, since more than one-half of the group live alone and well over one-half (average age 47.6 years) are single, separated, or divorced; 57.1% reported themselves as socially isolated prior to the onset of the current episode

Interpersonal incompetence? Jesus had an assemblage of disciples, taught publicly to large crowds, and showed no sign at all of interpersonal incompetence or social isolation. The closest we get to this is going off at untimed intervals to the mountains to pray, which is the sort of thing "normal" people do also (is your next vacation a sign of mental disorder? -- it is actually, in Jesus' case, also a testimony to his claim to be divine; as Malina and Rohrbaugh note [219] the wilderness was thought to be a dangerous place filled with demonic powers; Jesus' venturing alone into it shows an awareness of his place high up in the cosmic hierarchy). It's compatible with disorder, but not proof of it, especially in light of contrary evidence. (Our critic in response offers yet more bigoted and begged questions, pointing to the ascetic habits of Jesus, and adds that "the gospels report that Jesus was sometimes socially ostracized for his unconventional associations and was at times was considered mad by his family (Mk 3:21) and other Jews (Jn 10:20)." Our critic once again displays his incredible lack of knowledge of the social background of the situation. Jesus' "unconventional associations" were with tax collectors and prostitutes and lepers, the marginalized and oppressed of society. Was Mother Theresa mentally ill for caring for the poorest of the poor, the lepers, and the despised, in Calcutta? Shall it now be a show of mental illness to care for terminal AIDS patients?!? What was actually happening here is that Jesus was standing against ritual purity taboos heavily ingrained in ancient society, which disapproved of jumping class and social boundaries. This was an act that was akin to a white man locking arms with a black man during the Selma march, or a black man marrying a white woman in 1962! Good or bad, whatever Jesus does, it seems, is evidence of mental illness! As for the declarations of madness, we would point out as we did long ago, and below, that the assesments are hardly those of qualified professionals, and are countered by assessments by persons just as qualified: John 10:21, and Peter's profession of Jesus as Christ, and by the recognition of others; but more on this below as well).

Latest, latest: Our critic manages to omit the comment about Mother Teresa and the Selma march, apparently unwilling to stand up for the implied argument that such people were also mentally ill. It is said: "Holding is of course mistaken to think I did not know who I was referring to by 'Jesus' unconventional associations'." One wonders where I said that our critic did not know this. What he did not know, clearly, is that this is not usable as a unique sign of mental illness, hence his obvious dodge of the modern social comparisons. Also, on purity taboos: "Right -- and he incurred a resulting degree of social isolation -- despite Holding's claim that he 'showed no sign at all' of it." If this is social isolation, then so are the cases of charity our critic quietly dodges. "Social isolation" in terms of mental illness is not the same as "social isolation" in terms of progressive social activism. The white man locking arms with the black man is Selma risked "social isolation" from his own peer group (though in exchange gained social unity with another peer group, just as Jesus did!), yet would our critic dare call such a man mentally ill or delusional on that basis? Re whatever Jesus doing being evidence of mental illness: "An obvious strawman. There are of course myriad things Jesus does in the gospels that are not indicative of mental illness. Precisely none of them can count as a guarantee that Jesus never had any delusions." This is little but spin-doctoring for the sake of salvaging an absurd argument. Our critic has, again, taken behavior and generalized it into symptoms of delusion, adding paste to the text as needed to make it such. Finally on John 10:21: "Holding again pretends that any allegation of madness is worthless if not made by a trained professional, and ignores the fact that the contrary assessments were from Jesus' believers. He simply misses the point that the diagnosis of delusionality is quite plausible if one is willing -- as Holding obviously isn't -- to reserve judgment about the truth of the reports of Jesus' divinity." Our critic is clearly desperate to save his credibility here, for it is clear that he must argue for the validity of assessments made by non-professionals in order for his own non-professional opinion and diagnosis to have any honor rating in the eyes of gullible readers. What is runs down to is that accusations of madness were no more than part of the polemical stock of response-accusations and labels of deviance from the social norms in the period (cf. 2 Kings 9:11; Acts 12:15, 26:24) and no more represents a qualified or intended assessment of psychological state than a modern person responding to another today, "What are you, crazy?"

So it seems that Jesus was a poor candidate for paraphrenia, but our critic refers his fans to a "published attempt to diagnose paraphrenia in Jesus...at http://voi.org/books/pp/ch3.htm." Very interesting indeed. This item appears on the "Voice of India" website and is part of a book authored by someone named Koenraad Elst, who is not a psychologist or a psychiatrist but holds degrees in Indian Studies, Chinese Studies, and philosophy. Elst has a thing for Hinduism, and is not a dummy by any means, but also by no means is qualified to make psychological assessments, and his article starts with a reciting of the perception of Nietzsche of Paul, a case of minsuderstandings galore (i.e., Paul invented a new religion; in fact, as E. P. Sanders and W. D. Davies among others have shown, the only difference between Paul and rabbinic Judaism is that he thinks the Messiah has come in Jesus); gross misunderstanding of how faith relates to works (see here); it offers a psychological explanation for Paul's conversion which sounds pretty to skeptics but is far short on proof, as we would expect long-distance attempts to psycholanalyze to be (and later, an attempt to psychoanalyze Israel's history as well!); plays the selectivity game with the text ("These passages [from the Sermon on the Mount] are of disputed historicity, while many reliably historical passages show us a very different Christ, short-tempered, defiant, and a Doomsday prophet. The gentle Jesus, who was in Nietzsche’s view the original Jesus whose teaching and example were later deformed by Pauline Christianity, was himself just as much a creation of his second-generation disciples." -- funny how people like Crossan, and now the Jesus Seminar, prefer to say that if anything, the nice stuff was said by Jesus, but the Doomsday stuff was an invention of the church!; and how's "short-tempered" and "defiant" for unsupported, subjective, and vague generalization, to say nothing of being a description of half to two-thirds of the population!), before it finally does get to an analysis of Jesus.

The analysis actually offers mostly summary information about opinions of mental disorder in Jesus, including opinions from authors of books of psychology whose hermenutical skills were on the level of kindergartners. A Dr. Lange-Eichbaum is quoted:

The personality during the psychosis (we only know Jesus during this life stage) is characterized by quick-tempered soreness and a remarkable egocentrism. What is not with him, is cursed. He loves everything that is below him and does not diminish his Ego: the simple followers, the children, the weak, the poor in spirit, the sick, the publicans and sinners, the murderers and the prostitutes. By contrast, he utters threats against everyone who is established, powerful and rich, which points to a condition of resentment.

Our writer does not provide any details Lange-Eichbaum presumably (?) used in backing up this thesis, but as a whole and as it stands the analysis clearly begs the question. (Note especially the grossly begged question implied in, "we only know Jesus during this life stage"!) "Egocentrism" is a value judgment; one is usually accused of ego when overestimating or bragging about their own importance; one must thus assume that Jesus' claims about himself were actually false for this statement to stand. (The best our critic can do here, and several times hereafter, is claim that the Trilemma fails if "the reports of Jesus are consistent with mental illness"; actually it fails only if the reports are shown to be only consistent with mental illness, and there is no contrary evidence, which there is in plenty. In the latest, latest it is said that my argument "betrays a misunderstanding of elementary logic" and claims in return that "the burden of the Trilemma is to show that Jesus MUST NOT have been a lunatic [or liar], and the Trilemma fails if Jesus merely COULD have been a lunatic." Our critic says he has "explained this point to Holding no less than eight times" which says a lot about his persistence and how dull his life is, but does not in any way remove the burden from his shoulders. There is no "logic" in our critic's approach at all. In an evidentiary setting, as a courtroom, one must prove a matter beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. Our critic has consistently failed to show that a "delusional Jesus" is a reasonable hypothesis, as is shown by the constant necessity to resort to re-interpreting common human behaviors in a delusional paradigm, adding to the text whenever the data by itself fails to cooperate. Our critic's "logic" amounts to a demand that we prove beyond all doubt that Jesus was not delusional, in which case, one may as well allow Acharya S' speculation [for example] that certain pagan copycat Christs like Mithra actually were pre-Christian sources, or we may as well claim that the Trilemma is refuted by speculations that Jesus was a space alien or a time-traveller.) Loving those "below" and non-diminishing to ego is a characteristic of relief workers and many charitable souls worldwide and througout time who would be surprised to hear that this is evidence of mental disorder. (How is it that hatred of others is also a proof of disorder? Isn't it nice to be able to cite contradictory evidence as proof of the same thesis?) Overall this is little more than negative spin-doctoring; one may ask why the love for children, et al. and threats against those in power can't be reflective of the pursuit of a just cause in a society that was fundamentally unfair to the lower classes. If Jesus hated and threatened the poor and loved the rich, then what would we say? Either way it seems he can't win for losing. The good Doctor continues:

In this, all is puerile-autistic, naive, dreamy. In this basic picture of his personality, there is one more trait that is clearly distinguishable: Jesus was a sexually abnormal man. Apart from his entire life-story, what speaks for this is the quotations of Mt. 19:12 (the eunuch ideal), Mk. 12:25 (no sex in heaven, asexuality as ideal) and also Mt. 5:29 (removing the body parts that cause sin: intended are certainly not hand and eye). The cause may have been a certain weakness of libido, as is common among paranoia sufferers…

We wonder whether our critic would agree with such an evaluation; certainly the "eunuch ideal" hasn't led anyone to condemn the likes of Mother Teresa as mentally ill. The idea of "asexuality as ideal" is also found, albeit in different forms, in a number of religious traditions, including the Gnostics; I do not know what our critic would say, but our Doctor's arrogant "what I strongly disagree with equates with mental illness" approach seems all too obvious. (As does his lack of hermeneutical expertise: The Jews did not think that angels were incapable of having sex -- many after all believed that the "sons of God" of Gen. 6 were angels who had sex with women! -- and Jesus' point is that men will be like the angels in the sense of never dying, not sexlessness, which makes the question of the Saducees irrelevant [Witherington, Mark commentary, 328].) The referral to Matt. 5:29 is curious; presumably we are to believe that "hand and eye" are euphemisms for sexual organs, and that this advice is to be taken literally, but those with relevant scholarship on their mind, rather than dirt, recognize this as rhetorical hyperbole of the sort found in Seneca, who for example advised that one who cannot rid one's heart of vice should rip their heart out; similar words are found in Philo and the work of the rabbis, and other ancient writers offer expressions regarding willingness to undergo amputation for the sake of a greater good (see Keener, Matthew commentary, 188n) or for the sake of honor, which is the entire point. Today we even speak of giving an arm or a leg and no one takes us literally; in the East even today such expressions are used: "What I say to you is truth, and if it is not, I will cut off my right arm at the shoulder/pluck out my right eye." [Rihbany, The Syrian Christ, 118] Our critic doesn't select very authoritative sources -- one might as well suggest that Lange-Eichbaum shows an immense egotism of his own; and if he loved whatever children he had and expressed any compassion, we can call in the men in the white coats.

There is a lack of joy in reality, extreme seriousness, lack of humour, a predominantly depressed, disturbed, tense condition; coldness towards others insofar as they don’t flatter his ego, towards his mother and siblings, lack of balance: now weak and fearful, now with violent outbursts of anger and affective lack of proportion… According to both modern and ancient standards, he was intellectually undeveloped, as Binet has extensively proven; but he had a good memory and was, as is apparent from the parables, a visual type. Binet also emphasizes the lack of creativity. A certain giftedness in imagination, eloquence and imaginative-symbolic thought and expression cannot be denied. He was certainly not a ‘genius’ in the strict modem sense. The later psychosis is however in no way in contradiction with his original giftedness which was above average: in paranoia this is quite common…

As before this generally assumes what is yet to be proved, and involves in the main bigoted value judgments, and interpretations of events (i.e., "lack of joy in reality") by presumption. "Coldness" to mother and siblings is an interesting one; as I showed against Tulbure this coldness likely did not originate with Jesus; and actually there is some question as to whether in a Semitic context this would be considered coldness at all, since the expression could mean that Jesus' family members "are such not merely by human bonds, but especially because they obey the Father." (Keep this in mind, as our critic elsewhere claims that Jesus has nothing good to say to his family; if anything, this amounts to an invitation to join an extended family!) Jewish synagogues of the first century, and many movements today, use familial terminology; there is nothing extraordinary in Jesus' words. The data from Binet is not offered, but in light of what has been let out so far the evaluations most likely rest on the same sort of "read it like a newspaper" hermeneutic we have so far seen.

Latest, latest: Our critic now decides he had best defend Elst a bit (since it looks rather bad for him to have used him in the first place and not defend him now) and says: "First, Elst's term 'family' here obviously refers to his biological family, and blatantly redefining the word is nothing more than the fallacy of equivocation." What "blatant redefinition" is our critic talking about? It is not clear, but let us restate that the ancients, as clearly noted but as our critic chooses not to comment upon, defined their non-biological kinship groups with familial terms. Our critic, who continues (see below) to wave off the work of those engaged in the study and explanation of NT-era social anthropology, is manifestly unable to cope with this data. The ancient idea of kinship and identity was rooted in the perception that one's "group embeddedness" established one's identity and self-perception. The groups in which one were embedded expanded in a concentric circle: the biological family; the extended biological family; the local fictive kinship group (the synagogue, the ekklesia, the social gathering); the whole of the political realm (the Roman Empire, or the ethnic kinship of Jewishness). Likeness and solidarity was expressed in familial terms. Therefore, Jesus' words are an invitation to join a larger family group, and any suggestion Elst makes with respect to "coldness" towards a biological kinship group, or any point made about Jesus being angry with his family (which is not in the least to be found in the text) is hopelessly anachronistic for it is an assumption based on modern, narrow definitions of kinship rather than ancient, broader definitions. Our critic would be wise to wash his hands of Elst rather than make any effort to defend him.

Otherwise our critic accuses me of ascribing Elst's claim to him, which I did not do, I merely noted that it should be kept in mind when considering our critic's arguments elsewhere.

Analysis follows that reads the triumphal entry as evidence of being "psychotic" and says:

The exact diagnosis is not that important for us. A paranoid psychosis: that may be enough. Maybe real paranoia, maybe schizophrenia but without irreversible decay, in the form of a paraphrenia. Or a paranoia based on an earlier slightly schizophrenic shift. Anyone checking with the extant scientific literature is struck by the remarkable similarity of the symptoms.

Indeed, as similar as a St. Bernard and a French poodle. To his credit, Elst admits:

Dr. Lange-Eichbaum’s diagnosis belongs to an earlier stage in the development of psychopathology, when all kinds of explanations were read into symptoms, without using strict criteria. Freud’s psycho-analysis is so notoriously full of unfalsifiable statements (i.e. impossible to prove wrong, escaping every cold test) that Karl Popper classifies it among the pseudo-sciences along with astrology. Dr. Lange-Eichbaum stays closer to factual reality in his description of symptoms, but is hazy in the formulation of a final diagnosis. Moreover, his knowledge of the Biblical backgrounds and the Roman-Hellenistic cultural milieu are limited, so that many possibly pertinent facts escape his attention. We would have to wait for Dr. Somers’ multidisciplinary competence to formulate a truly comprehensive diagnosis.

Couldn't have said it much better myself, and would say the same of our critic's strained attempts to turn Jesus into a mental case. Not that Elst does better; in the next section on Jesus' miracles, aside from the usual anti-supernatural bias, he commits hermeneutical homicide again: "With regard to the exorcisms it is very dear that Jesus, as the Gospel attests, cannot prevent the devil from coming back (Mt 12: 43-45)." The reference is not to an exorcism of Jesus; it is a parabolic representation of the effects of rejecting Jesus' reign as Messiah, meaning that the condition of those who do so will be that they will be worse off than they were before. It is like the shallow ground in the parable of the soils. Elst then says, "We should also study the cases where Jesus refuses to do a miracle: e.g. in Nazareth (where everybody knows him); before the Syro-Phoenician woman; when the Pharisees ask for one." Funny thing -- see below on the first; in the second case, the refusal was very temporary; in the third, the Pharisees didn't want a miracle but a "sign from heaven", a miraculous act from God, not from Jesus. We are told: "Further, one can suppose that some miracles were simply declarations of Jesus that somebody was healed. Thus, from the ten leper-patients declared cured, only one came back. The nine others, sent to the priests for verification, had obviously not been declared cured." One can "suppose" no such thing; this miracle occurred in a wilderness area, and the priests were miles off; the other nine were still on their way to the priests. Shall we have expected Jesus to wait out in the wilderness? (Isolation in the wildnerness! A sign of mental disorder!) Shall we have expected all ten to be grateful enough to make the return journey? Elst is locked in a box of two dimensions, just like many skeptics. (On moving a mountain, see here; this is more hermenuetical homicide by Elst. I think at any rate the sick would be far more impressed by being healed than by having mountains moved, and it also be a lot less disturbing to human society. "There goes Mt. Carmel!" "Thanks, I needed that for my croup.")

Elst next does his evidence-sifting, ruling out parts of the Gospels based on contrived and badly informed arguments: the behavior of Pilate, the usual misapprehension of Matt. 27:34, the false idea that a "soon" Second Coming and end of the world was expected (see here). Many of Jesus' teachings Elst deigns to erase from the record by means of a tactical precursor of the Jesus Seminar's "if it was said by someone else, or was common lore, Jesus didn't say it" routine. (By comparison Elst notes -- without documentation -- that in Communist books he found sayings of Voltaire attributed to Marx; how exact the alleged reproductions were is not noted, but what was to stop a messaive egotist like Marx from quoting Voltaire and not giving the old man credit? -- quoting of common lore has been done by every great sage in every society; this is a meaningless methodology), or erase events by means of the old "oh they just made it up" routine, with the fallacious "it only appears in one source so it can't be true" excuse that is never made with other parallel accounts. Elst's accounts of Jesus' baptism can't even get the quotes straight and takes Markan priority for granted. With what is left from this raping of the text, Elst finally goes on to make a case for Jesus as a victim of paraphrenia, overwhelmingly doing so by spackling liberal doses of speculative history and interpretive assumption upon the girders of the text. With such genius have I also seen cases made that Jesus spent his lost years in India or came originally from Mars. Thus on the episode of teaching in the Temple as a child: "By itself, the temple episode need not be pathological, it could have been a fairly ordinary event in the difficult puberty process of self-discovery. But it does betray a psychological setting in which a deeper mental disease can develop." Thus when necessary, Elst draws upon late apocryphal texts like the Gospel of the Hebrews. Thus a psychologist is quoted as somehow thinking that the Temptation in the wilderness reveals "the desire to fly" and all revelation is dismissed as hallucination. Thus again hermeneutical homicide, and perhaps bad reading:

The next hallucinatory crisis is on Mount Tabor. He goes up on the mountain with his disciples Peter, James and John. There, in a sea of white light, he meets with Elijah and Moses. Again, a voice from the clouds speaks: “This is my Son, the Beloved. Listen to Him.” According to Luke (9:28-36), Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah about ‘his going-out which he would perform in Jerusalem. Then, the scene stops and Jesus is alone with his disciples, who have not seen Moses and Elijah: they merely wake up when they hear Jesus talk to somebody. In the testimony of Mark (9:2-10) there is the same revealing contradiction: while it is contended that Elijah and Moses appeared, only Jesus is described and it is said that finally the apostles saw nobody but Jesus.

What ho? Luke 9:32: "But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him." Mark 9:4: "And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus." They haven't seen Moses and Elijah? Does our critic expect us to take Elst seriously when he can't even read the text in front of him? And more:

A third report of a hallucinatory crisis is only given by John (12:20-36). During the entry in Jerusalem he hears the voice of the Father saying: “I have glorified him and will glorify him again.” The people said it had thundered, some said an angel had spoken to him, i.e. to Jesus. So it was only Jesus who had heard the words.

What ho? "The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him." Our critic is only digging himself deeper into incompetence by citing this nonsense as authoritative, and while I expect skeptics to add their own spin ("John is just lying") it tells enough of Elst as a source that he can't even report the text correctly. One may wonder how, if he fouls up a source as simple as the Gospels, he managed detailed texts of psychology without injury.

Elst's source, Dr. Somers, isn't too bright either: "Contemporary theologians like E. Schillebeeckx ascribe these stories to the imagination of the primitive Church, which wanted to glorify Jesus. But, asks Dr. Somers: 'Why should the Church invent a number of stories which caused nothing but difficulties? Why should the son of God be baptized? [Hint: See here; this is no "difficulty" at all!] Why should he be tempted by the devil, and that with such extravagant temptations? [Extravagant? Temptation to carnal desire, temptation to power and glory, what's extravagant about that?] Why should he fast during 40 days? [Why shouldn't he? Fasting is seen by religious types in many faiths as a way to sharpen spiritual awareness, and 40 days would have been programmatically symbolic of Israel's Exodus, just the sort of prophetic act we would expect in a Jewish paradigm.] Why should he see wild beasts? [Hint: Because wild beasts lived in the wilderness, Dr. Somers! If you're in the woods and you see a bear, does that prove you're psychotic? Note though that it nowhere says that Jesus saw, or interacted with, wild beasts, just that he was where they were usually found.] It is quite inconceivable that the primitive Church invented these strange stories for the glorification of Jesus." What's really inconceivable is that people like Somers spout off at the mouth without knowing diddly about their subject matter. And skeptics wonder why they don't get respect from me.

We got plenty more heremeutical homicide from Elst's quarter. Our critic may get lonely, but he'll have to answer all of this if he wants to make the grade:

The paraphrenic patient has some marked characteristics, other than the rare hallucinations and the delusional state, e.g.: a great hostility against those who contradict him, often also a familial rage, as the family usually contradicts him; autistic behaviour, in the sense that the criterion for judgment and action is not reality, but his subjective will; an interpretative delirium, i.e. interpreting events and utterances as pointing to him and to his delusion; concealing his conviction and temporizing as long as circumstances seem unfriendly. All these typical features can be found in the Gospel.

Really? Let's look at the examples from Elst the Expert Exegete:

Jesus threatens Bethsaida, Kapharnaum, Jerusalem, because they did not believe him. If the Son of Man comes with heavenly power, all those who did not believe will be killed, along with all kings and mighty men.

Wow, I can smell the begged question from here! Question: If Jesus really was the Messiah, then wouldn't this be a real threat? And presumably (in fact, it is so!) Elst will say that all other Jewish prophets were nuts as well.

Jesus insults the Pharisees, because they disbelieve and criticize him.

Hokey smokes, that means that the Qumranites, the rabbis, and Celsus were also mentally off, to name a few! If you think Jesus' insults are bad, you should read some Juvenal or Lucian!

Jesus is especially angry with his family which tried to prevent his preaching. A number of logia (= sayings of Jesus) are directed against the family, and in the Gospel one cannot find any friendly word to the family and especially to his mother.

We've made brief note of this above; Elst pulls up a parallel (Mark 3:5) and (insert laughter here) Luke 14:26. (Our critic claims that this article "says nothing to contradict 1) Elst's implication that Jesus was angry with his family and 2) Elst's statement that Jesus has no friendly words for his family or mother," but as Elst's poor interpretation of this passage is his grounds for such an argument, our response does render the matter pointless, for in that case the anger and lack of friendliness otherwise must be gratuitously assumed to be behind the scenes, as well as rest on the assumption that it was Jesus, not his family, that was the instigator of the hostility, which is not what the NT text, our only direct source, suggests -- this does completely refute Elst's contention, as he does no more than our critic does, spackling interpretative drywall on a skeleton of evidence merely to suit his thesis, while utterly failing to deal with the relevant social data with relation to fictive kinship groupings, see above -- it is now added by our critic, "Holding dares not attempt to produce any gospel citations showing that Jesus ever had friendly words for his family or mother," which is no dare at all, since no one argues that there are friendly words, and only an amateur logician would build a thesis on an argument from gross silence while ignoring the social data offered above). Elst then says, "the true enemies of man are his family members (Mt 10:35; see also Mk 11:30; Mt 10:35; Mk 13:11)." Matt. 10:35 twice? He's got it as wrong as Acharya S (and same for Mark 13:11) -- Jesus is predicting that the family will be the miscreants, not himself or the believers. (Our critic is forced to spin this out for his purposes by claiming that it shows "bitterness" on Jesus' part! There's that ability to mind-read over the centuries again! Why could it not be said regretfully, or matter-of-factly? Our critic admits now, "Jesus could of course be regretful and even matter-of-fact about his disappointment at his family," but adds, "How does that make his disappointment necessarily not bitter?" That is not the point -- the point is that bitterness MUST be read into the text, and that it is ludicrious to prop up a theory based on non-evidence when other rational alternatives, especially alternatives grounded in the social matrix, are available. Bitterness towards biological family was an extreme rarity in the ancient world; because the biological family was the central kinship group, total disengagement was practically impossible, and behavior towards kin in a "bitter" manner was reprehensible, a mark of extreme dishonor. Thus our critic's argument requires even more silences in the text be overcome, for there is absolutely no evidence that others regarded Jesus' reaction to his family as dishonorable, and indeed such dishonorable regard to one's family would have resulted in Jesus being immediately shunned by the larger fictive kinship group. It is therefore clear that Jesus' attitude must have been one of regret or matter-of-factness, and that it was the family, not Jesus, that was primarily responsible for the distance, which was not a total separation at all. Moreover, if Jesus was indeed bitter to his family or separated from them completely, it seems odd that he is still closely tied enough to be considered part of the group travelling to the feast [John 7].) Mark 11:30 is, "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me." Really bad family manners, huh?

Latest, latest: Our critic now adds, "his own family [..] would have been his earliest and most devoted disciples if Jesus were really divine. But they weren't, because he wasn't." How this works out logically is not stated. Biological family ties do not automatically equate with loyalty to every movement that a family member picks up and runs with. Moreover, this is an absurd assertion based on non-evidence as we have absolutely no idea what happened in the years between Jesus' infancy and ministry (aside from Luke's cameo at age 12) and thus no evidence upon which to make the judgment that "his own family...would have been his earliest and most devoted disciples." We have no personality profiles, no list of expectations or assumptions, from Mary or from Jesus' biological brothers and sisters. As always, our critic is compelled to add his own assumptions to the text in order to make his theory work.

A highly irrational act is Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree when, out of season, it is not bearing fruit (Mk 16:20-25; Mt 21:18-22). The tree is behaving normally, but Jesus punishes it: never again will it bear fruit.

Read it and weep.

Jesus is also violently sensitive to things relating to his supposed Father. The violent scene he makes against the traders in the temple (Mk 11:15-17; Mt 21:12-13; Lk 19:45-46), where he objects against the transportation of any object, is motivated by what he perceives as their dishonouring his Father’s house.

Oh, wow, strong religious sentiment, right or wrong, is sign of mental disorder! See here again. No? "Those traders were not doing anything unethical or irreligious. They had an important function in temple life, where sacrifices were the normal and statutory practice." And they were ripping off the poor, as later rabbis attested.

Another, more specific detail is that he attempts to keep his status as Son of Man secret: “Do not talk about this with anyone”, he says several times. Only when his disciples, and later the priests during his trial, ask him straight if he is God’s son, he consents, saying that they have said it. But to theologians, it has always remained a riddle why Jesus should be so secretive about his glorious mission.

Maybe the theologians need to read this. And so does Elst, along with the notes that in spite of Jesus' warnings, the word spread about him anyway!

Paraphrenia patients are very aware of the attitude (and possible lack of understanding) of their fellow men. That is why Jesus temporizes, in expectation of more auspicious circumstances.

Wow, we're always told to watch our attitude and work for understanding; now we're told to do so is a sign of mental illness! No example is given of this, though, so we'll just shove it aside as one more of Elst's homicidal efforts.

A final symptom is the anti-sexual attitude. As the studies of Bultmann have shown, the primitive church has cleansed, adapted a number of logia. A relevant example is provided by the logia about the children and the reign of God: unless you become like children, you cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. In the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, some logia have been preserved which explain the periscopes of the Gospels: to be a child is to be asexual and free of sexual shame (log. 12, 21; cfr. also log. 37, 114: if you make masculine and feminine one). In the canonical Gospels it is also said that in heaven there is no marriage, and virginity is exalted, as it is in the Apocalypse. The theme is constant: virginity, inhibition of sexual activity, as well in the canonical Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas as in the Apocalypse.

Little wonder, since GThom is a document heavily influenced by Gnosticism, which believed that matter was evil. Maybe the Gnostys were paraphrenics too? See also above on "sexual" references.

Elst is wrong about the charge against Jesus; see the piece above with reference to Pilate. On the birth narratives, which Elst spends a great deal of time on under the assumption that they are contradictory, see here. On allegedly contradictory locations of the Ascension see here -- Elst doesn't even know basic Bible geography! Despite Elst Luke does not put the ascension in Jerusalem.

Is it credible that a witness of such a wonderful and glorious event could say nothing more than “he disappeared”? It sounds like a very simple goodbye. Why did they not invite a number of witnesses to this ultimate glorification? Even the high priest?

Oh, yes, that would have been an intelligent decision: And have the high priest try and kill Jesus all over again? Elst seems to have the naive idea that spectacular revelation is a cure for all moral ills!

It should be noted that angels appear at all difficult moments: the conception, the birth of Jesus, the resurrection, the ascension. The Holy Ghost explains both the conception of Jesus and the conception of the Church. The structural analysis reveals a systematic trend, a thematic thinking: when there is a difficult situation, a myth with angels or Holy Ghost is masking the truth. So there is a constant “mythologic” activity, why not say “mythomanic” (not in a truly pathological, but in a larger sense).

That's a connection with logic overflowing. One wonders why it makes any difference to have angels showing up at these "difficult moments" since it doesn't clearly solve anything and indeed might be supposed to make the situation even more "difficult".

Jesus is sentenced to crucifixion. This was a Roman, not a Jewish punishment, and Bible scholars have debated a lot about this seemingly unnecessary hand-over of Jesus by the Jewish authorities to the Roman governor Pilate, who proceeded to implement the death penalty which Jesus had deserved according to the Jewish law.

Unnecessary handover? Again see the piece linked above re Pilate -- "handing over" was normal! But here's where Elst gets really wild:

Crucified convicts were tied (not nailed) to a cross, and their death was brought about by torture and by breaking their bones. Interestingly, the Roman soldiers refrained from breaking Jesus’ bones, no doubt because they had orders to do so. Having heard of the prediction that Jesus would rise on the third day, Pilate must have thought it quite an interesting practical joke to arrange for the effective re-appearance of this weird godman. So, he ordered a servant to look after Jesus after he had been taken down from the cross, and to get him back on his feet by the third day.

Yes, another conspiracy theory to add to the list! Elst is just plain wrong about the tying/nailing bit. Not the disciples stealing the body, not Joseph moving the body, but Pilate risking his career as a Roman procurator to play a joke on everyone. I'll bet he also liked to stick whoopee cushions under Caiaphas' seat. I could say more, but I'm just wondering if our critic wishes to defend any of this nonsense from his authoritative source. It turns out that he doesn't.

One can suppose that Pilate ordered the centurion to spare Jesus, so that he would not die but “resurrect”. After three days, Jesus was sufficiently healed, and a few days later he paid a nightly visit to his disciples in Jerusalem. But he had to be careful, because if he was caught, he would have been stoned or decapitated.

Not only that, he had to fool everyone into thinking that a bruised and beaten body was actually a glorified resurrection body. Not just first aid, but first class aid.

What did Saint Paul go to Arabia for? Could it be that that is where Jesus was staying, safely just outside the Roman Empire?

Overall I see no need to do more than laugh at this -- all that is missing is the little green men from the Secular Web. We are told other interesting things, like that Jesus authored the book of Revelation, that "Ezekiel, Daniel and Henoch were mental patients, schizophrenics and paraphrenics, showing all typical symptoms of these diseases: receiving revelations, seeing visions, believing they are the elected ones, predicting catastrophes" (the same bigotry shown by McKinsey and other critics of apocalyptic literature, which Jews of the first century had a respect for!) and that Elst has provided "the first-ever coherent explanation of the Apocalypse, a text with which the theologians have never come to terms." Sounds like symptoms of ego to me! You don't suppose Elst is a paraphrenic, do you? (Not surprisingly, our critic almost entirely washes his hands of Elst and does nothing to defend him from our critique, other than the minor points above. One wonders why Elst was even bothered with at all. Our critic now refers to Elst as "idiosyncratic" which seems to be the final word washing his hands of this non-expert he never should have brought into the mix in the first place, but did anyway for no other purpose than to score points.)

In case anyone's forgotten -- we still have a prior critic to take care of. Next up on Jesus' miracles. I asked, "...what's this nonsense about "hysterical" blindness or paralysis? None of the subjects said to be blind or paralyzed show any evidence in the texts of having been 'hysterical'" (as that meaning, showing psychosomatic illness -- for more on this now see here.). Our critic says:

Holding seems unaware of what hysterical blindness is, and seems to think it must be accompanied by behavior that in ordinary English would be called "hysterical". Hysterical blindness is a form of what in modern psychology is called "conversion disorder", which "is characterized by the loss of a bodily function, for example blindness, paralysis, or the inability to speak.

I am unaware of no such thing. I have stated that there is, indeed, no evidence of that sort of behavior; but that is not the point! Without such evidence, there is no evidence of hysteria, and it's just more skeptical fill-in-the-gap speculation! This doesn't do anything for our critics' case and if anything makes it look even more makeshift. In response we are given this strange sentence: "Holding here inexplicably misses the point that conversion disorders are not characterized by 'hysteria'. Rather, they are 'characterized by the loss of a bodily function, for example blindness, paralysis, or the inability to speak'. Does Holding claim 'there is no evidence' of such loss of bodily function in the gospels?" I have not missed the point at all. The point I have made, which remains standing, is that our critic has provided no way to differentiate between blindness, etc. caused by hysteria and that which is not, and merely assumes (presumably, under the all-purpose guise of the "most parsimonious explanation") that the conditions described must be associated as such. This amounts to an admission that the data, as it stands, does not support the critic's view, and therefore must be serviced with filled-in gaps amenable to the assumed skeptical paradigm.

Latest, latest: It is now said, "The way to differentiate between a conversion disorder (which Holding still misleadingly calls 'hysteria') and physiological deficits is through the usual clinical techniques. The fact that the gospels do not provide enough data to differentiate between conversion disorders and physiological deficits is hardly an argument that they CANNOT be the former, but in fact is the very reason why we cannot conclude they MUST be the latter!" Once again it is the same fallacious technique of filling in the gaps to make the theory fit, and now our critic admits as much when he confesses that indeed the gospels do not provide enough data to support his thesis! Once again, we are not compelled to argue matters beyond all doubt, merely beyond a reasonable doubt. Our critic if honest would now go on to admit that he is manipulating the data to suit his thesis rather than letting the data speak for itself, and admitting that it says nothing at all that actually helps him. The constant bleating appeal to "parsimony" (or "convenience") is an absurdity that is taken by means of isolating single incidents in the Gospels from the larger socio-historical context, within which our critic's "more parsimonious explanation" of a deluded Jesus utterly fails. As we shall see, and have seen already, our critic has little desire to expand his horizons in this respect.

I say the critics "also denigrate ancient people and insult their intelligence (re the reanimations) and call a writer a liar outright." Our critic replies:

Holding here confuses ignorance with lack of intelligence, rather than rebutting my assertion that pronouncement of death was not an exact science in ancient times.

I'm glad that our skeptic made this point, because he puts his foot in his mouth just a few paragraphs below on this subject. We'll get to that.

Calling an element of a written story an "embellishment" does not imply that the person who wrote the story down is a "liar". Holding seems to think that the entire process by which the gospel stories were developed, repeated, and recorded can be certified as free of any possible misunderstanding, misinterpretation, false assumption, exaggeration, or deception.

If an embellishment is not something false, then what the heck is it? Our critic is backpedalling again, and producing a torrent of mumbo-jumbo in defense and to obscure the issue isn't going to do the job. I do think that the process can be critically examined; we have literary evidence, we have oral tradition evidence, we have social evidence. What we don't have is any application of the evidence, especially from a comparative point of view, from our critic, who can only pull up statements of astonishment like this one. (Later it is is said, "Embellishment implies falsehood, but falsehood alone does not imply lying." Didn't our critic just get through saying that the Gospels were probably a mix of "misinterpretation, exaggeration, rationalization, delusion, and deception"? In other words, at least three parts out of five, possibly four, involving lying? So which is it? Is it whatever is convenient to keep the theory afloat? That our critic only calls the Gospel writer liars most of the time, or divides "lying" into varying species, is not lessened by that he does not call them that at other times, and that he now tries to pawn off the accusations by suggesting that perhaps some Gospel writers passed on things unwittingly rather than engaging falsehood directly does not do anything more than add a level of transmission to the same baseless and presumptive accusations!) Latest, latest: "Holding does not admit that in fact I have yet to tell him of a single gospel element that I claim was known to be fa lse by a gospel author himself. I dare Holding to quote me otherwise." That our critic has not had the nerve or the guts to work out his thesis in such detail is of no relevance, but merely shows that he is unwilling to have his thesis subjected to detailed critical scrutiny -- assuming he has even worked out the details at all rather than simply waving pom-poms and refusing to commit to explanations just in case the ones he goes with do not work out.

I say:

(Again, if reportage in just one source of any detail -- no matter how "spectacular" a critic thinks it is, based on their own subjective judgments -- is "sufficient grounds to reject" an element as an embellishment, then reams of material in parallel accounts across the board must likewise be "rejected."

Our critic says:

Holding seems to make the astonishing claim that the miraculous restoration of a severed body part is "spectacular" only according to "subjective judgment"!

Piling one "astonished" on another isn't an answer -- yes, it is a subjective judgment; it is based on the completely subjective opinion that miracles have not and never will have happened, merely because "I haven't seen one"! Within the paradigm of a non-naturalistic worldview, repairing an ear is peanuts! (Here our critic responds: "Even theist philosophers acknowledge that miracles are by definition unusual and out of the ordinary. Holding's 'I haven't seen one' standard is another of his hopeless strawmen. Holding doesn't dare enunciate the *actual* justification: I haven't seen one, and I haven't seen a credible report of one, and I've seen many reports of them that are non-credible, and everything I have seen can better be explained without miracles and miracle-workers." Our critic has again done nothing but sum up subjective experience and judgment, and piled it with that of others with the same judgment, and thereby only proven me right once again! The entire basis is his personal experience, and that of those he agrees with! From there, the rest which cannot be explained away definitively is explained away via rationalization and the hope that someday, someone -- science, aliens, James Randi -- will figure out what "actually" happened and that it wasn't a miracle! And when necessary, claim that an explanation is "more parsimonious" simply because it fits in our assumed worldview better! I will add now that our critic is oblivious to various knowledge and physical constraints of ancient authors; again see here for more.)

Latest, latest: It is now said, "The desperate Holding here tries to pretend that ANY justification I could possibly have would still be 'subjective' simply because, ultimately, it's PERSONALLY taken by me as a justification! By Holding's definition, ANY judgment is similarly 'subjective', and thus his complaint of subjectivity is demonstrated to be meaningless." There is no "desperation" here; this is a simple fact! The entire argument is based upon a subjective "well-if-I-was-there-and-I-saw-that-I-sure-would-have-been-all-goggle-eyed-over-it-and-said-something-about-it" argumentation which is completely oblivious to the variable factors involved in the transmission of information (to say nothing of ignorance of physical constraints, as noted in the link above). If our critic was honest, he would simply admit that the data is insufficient for a conclusion of the sort he desires, and that there is absolutely no positive grounds beyond an assumed ("parsimonious") paradigm of naturalistic faith (which is indeed what it continues to be, despite our critic's protestations to the contrary) within which the texts are baldly, circularly interpreted and mishandled.

I write:

In my parallels of Lincoln biographies, one in particular contains much more detail that the other three bios do not report; some of this material left unreported, even concerning the same event, while not on the scale of a miracle, is of such "importance" that one could easily construct plausible arguments accusing the single writer of "embellishment."

Our critic answers:

The plausibility of those arguments would of course depend on the prior plausibility of the story element in question, the possible motivations for the one author to include it, and the likelihood that the remaining authors would exclude it if they believed it. By these criteria, it is indeed plausible that the ear-healing miracle is an embellishment, unless of course one is otherwise convinced that Jesus could heal miraculously. Given that all the other accounts of Jesus' healings -- even if taken at face value -- are susceptible to naturalistic explanations, it's not unreasonable to consider the isolated ear-healing detail as an embellishment.

And thus he as much admits that I am right! It has already been decided that a healing is implausible, based on a subjective worldview! If our critic were honest, he would admit that he is plugging the gaps with his own faith-paradigm of "naturalistic explanations"! The "only one guy reported it" throw-out is merely an excuse -- as with the Lincoln bios, there could be any number of reasons why it would not be reported by others: Was Luke alone, perhaps, of the opinion that there was adequate reason to make a stylistic diversion and report a miracle that was no different than, and indeed less spectacular than, other miracles? (I.e., not life-threatening, and not an essential organ for manipulation or function? Losing an ear doesn't make you deaf!) Was Malchus now a Christian, and would bringing up this incident have endangered him if it had been reported in Matthew and Mark's earlier works, whereas in the later or geographically removed works of John and Luke, it would not? (Remember that the chief priests also wanted to put Lazarus to death -- John 12:10! But even if they couldn't do that legally, they sure could make his life miserable or arrange a nasty "accident" for him or his sisters! Side note: Our critic makes the point that John does not mention the healing; what of it? John does mention other things uniquely that he considered more important; this does nothing to alter my thesis of general inclinations of individual writers, nor now my material here, and ignores the point that John was intended to supplement the Synoptic records -- our critic mumbles back that under this assumption, "if John was only 'supplementing' the Synoptics, he wouldn't have needed to mention the ear being severed in the first place -- or indeed to mention much of the rest of the Passion, either" -- obviously oblivious to the counter-riposte that John's account of the trial, arrest, and Passion are filled with details unreported in the Synoptics, and that even in offering supplementary data it is still necessary to offer basic contextual frameworks to create a coherent narrative.) Did Malchus perhaps begin by denying the healing, in order to stay out of trouble? What was the reaction to Malchus' claim to have been healed, and how obvious was the act of healing, and how many people noticed it in the melee and darkness of the arrest? (It is conceivable that only Malchus knew exactly what had happened, and that Luke is reporting something known now only through his investigations! This does not require, as our critic somehow thinks, that Malchus "wore a hat pulled down over his restored ear for the rest of his life" -- why would that be necessary? The ear was healed and there would be no sign of it ever having been lost, and as I have clearly noted, Malchus may have been the only one who knew of the severing and healing. What evidence would be left? A single ear on the ground, with no DNA testing to match it to anyone and no missing ear "spot" to connect to the source. Note that the issue here is not what the accounts say, but what those present would know or see, and by what means Matthew or Mark acquired the data.) Bottom line as usual: Skeptical and critical arguments tends to have a serious case of one-dimensional thinking!

I ask:

At any rate I would not exclude the psychologically ill from Jesus' care, and there is still a real problem to be cared for, one which only the best-trained psychologists doing close experiments have dealt with today. Was Jesus trained to the level of these modern psychologists?

It is replied:

Conventional faith healers treat psychosomatic afflictions without any psychological training. Indeed, similar to the placebo effect, the success rate of faith healing is likely to be inversely correlated with the psychological training of the patient and healer.

No examples of this comparable to Jesus are offered; the critic gets no credit without exemples! Are these faith-healers able to induce a permanent cure? (Obviously not; and if the parallel were to hold, then Jesus and his movement, like the faith-healers, ought to have had a minimum following of loyalists and practically no new converts! Do you think Peter Popoff could start a worldwide movement that people would suffer and die for? Do you think Ernest Angley will get out of Dayton and buy himself a new toupee? Our critic irrelevantly declares, "If Holding has any evidence that placebo effects (such as conventional faith-healing) cannot be indefinite, he should present that evidence rather than baldly asserting it to be obvious." It is obvious, in terms of the types of miracles under discussion: Healing those blind from birth versus healing back pain, for example! Our critic commits that category error yet again! He also says I have named no such healer who went to martyrdom, which is exactly the point! They don't have the wherewithal or the goods to even try, which they should have, if they had a genuine gift and an anointing from God! As a friend asked, "If Benny Hinn has the power, why isn't he visiting hospitals?" But again, it doesn't take many complaints of false healing -- especially when you are not a member of the controlling and priviliged ruling class, which also happens to dislike you -- to flush the whole effort down the toilet! Here again our critic can only point yet again to Jesus not doing miracles at home, and the "mad" evaluation of his family, addressed below and above respectively.)

Latest, latest: It is now said: