 |
|
|
|
Dead in the Water
Reply to Barry Bickmore on 1 Cor. 15:29
J. P. Holding
The format of reply for this essay is different than for others in this series because Bickmore's response was in PDF format, and I have no efficient way of copying and pasting it over to a place I can work with it as I did other responses in this series. Because of this, I will be replying in bullet format rather than with a narrative as elsewhere.
Though it is the subject of another chapter, Bickmore responds to what I said about the relation of faith and works being resolved by Semitic Totality by saying, "the spirit and body do not always act as the kind of unity that Holding's view seems to require." "Seems" is an operative word here. My view does not require this; it merely requires that such incidences be identified for what they are: inconsistency at best and hypocrisy, or denial in disbelief, at worst. In any event Bickmore does agree that a person with true faith will be baptized if the know Jesus was commanded it, and in that respect (as others have noted) Bickmore is closer to the mainstream Christian soteriology than other LDS writers.
Again, though not part of this chapter, Bickmore ranges to my comments on John 3:5 as not possibly being referring to Christian baptism, which would as yet be instituted at the time Jesus spoke to Nicodemus. Bickmore responds (actually predictably) by noting that Jews did practice convert baptism and associated it with a "new birth." However, this is simply an equivocation. It is not a Christian new birth, so at best Jesus is telling Nic confusingly that he needs to get a baptism into some other sect that will end up having nothing to do with Christianity as it will be known. However, as it happens, Bickmore's quote from Skarsune says nothing at all about a ritual immersion (!); Bickmore merely jumps to an unfounded conclusion that Skarsune's comments about ritual uncleanness provide some support for the ideal of efficacious baptism. Quite simply, it does not, and Skarsune is quoted to no effect.
Nor so quotes from patristic writers, or their view of John 3:5 (especially being retrospective), lend any weight. Let us remember that by the LDS apologetic paradigm, it was Hellenistic thinking that corrupted the church in part. I have argued that the patristic emphasis on baptism fits hand in glove with a Hellenistic "infection" (not a deadly one!) that veered away from the Semitic Totality paradigm. Ironically, as I have noted, it is Mormons who are accepting a Hellenistic belief when they cite those who say baptism was efficacious! (However, Bickmore's quote from the Apostolic Constitutions, expresses a "Semitic Total" view quite clearly!)
Bickmore's reply to my point that Paul would have referred to baptism in general, not just baptism for the dead, is muddled and of no relevance: "But if the 'no resurrection' party at Corinth had spiritualized the accounts of Jesus' resurrection and the prophecies about the general resurrection, why couldn't they have spiritualized this aspect of baptismal symbolism?" What is Bickmore suggesting here? That the Corinthians did convert baptism "spiritually" and this is why Paul did not include it with BFD? If so, this only creates a new problem of why Paul did not correct this mistake as well; it also flounders upon the obvious point that Paul did baptize some of them, and so they obviously knew how to do it "right" which makes Paul's lack of a correction even more ridiculous in context.
As for my note that Paul would not ask "why," but "why do you still," Bickmore postures that this is "mind reading" -- it is not; it is a simple fact that the question would be more properly phrased this way, for it takes no mind-reading to see that the obvious answer to "why" is "because we were taught to," which makes the "still" qualifier necessary for the Mormon case to have any validity. That Paul had no indication of where the practice originated is beside the point -- Mormons would already have us believe it was an apostolic or original doctrine; otherwise they again have no case.
Finally Bickmore thinks it some point of worth to ask, "If this is so then why did Paul not ask, 'Why do we still stand in jeopardy every hour...'?" This is not an apt comparison. Paul asks this of what he and the other apostles do, and they are NOT acting inconsistently; they have maintained the same belief. The Corinthians have not. A "still" question only makes sense if the subject is acting inconsistently with a professed belief. Bickmore is simply confused.
Bickmore concedes the argument (against Hopkins, though he does not mention this) that Paul could have used a false practice to make his point. He then turns to my "if-why" argument, and claims it can be turned against me with one alleged example that does not fit the mold. However, the example he cites, 1 Cor. 15:30, "And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?" contains no "if" -- it is not an example of the pattern. Bickmore merely assumes that the "if" from v. 29 carries over to v. 30; it does not, because as noted, the question is a rhetorical one ABOUT Paul and the apostles, who do not share the erroneous beliefs of the Corinthians and have maintained consistent behavior. Bickmore's single example therefore deceases most painfully.
Bickmore does not do justice to commentators in claiming that "some" believe it was done for those who died before receiving baptism. I did not find a single commentator who accepted the "vicarious baptism" explanation, other than the LDS, who agreed that it was anything but this, and Bickmore names none who say otherwise. There are NONE I have found who support the LDS view who are not LDS. (As an aside, Bickmore misses that my point about Hellenistic Christians not inventing such a rite is not addressed to the LDS position, but to the "majority" view.)
This is one of Bickmore's standard and most disappointing tricks. He claims that I "badly misread" what Richard DeMaris wrote; he then proceeds to explain what DeMaris did write, and his explanation matches exactly what I said about DeMaris' views! (The same thing is done in a footnote concerning what I said about Welch. In neither case is the difference actually explained.) Bickmore also disclaims LDS abuse of DeMaris' material, asking why "it would be wrong for [LDS] to cite DeMaris as someone who has recently noted the scholarly consensus" about interpreting 1 Cor. 15:29. The answer is simple: Because when those in question do so, they leave out how and why DeMaris disagrees with them! It is patently dishonest to use DeMaris as support for the LDS position without admitting, and dealing with, how he does NOT agree with the LDS position, and certain apologists (Bickmore included) have not been forthright in acknowledging these differences. It is not enough to merely brush DeMaris off by saying there is "no compelling reason" to accept his view; one must actually DEAL with it!
Joel White's understanding is said to be "weak" on the point where he argues for an allusion to 1 Cor. 1:13-17. Bickmore claims weakness in that Paul's question is rhetorical. That is not a response at all. White agrees that Paul's question is rhetorical; it is sarcastic! They had formed parties based on who was baptized by who. In any event while Bickmore otherwise calls White's interpretation "a bit strained" he makes no effort to explain why this is so.
Bickmore's source, Horrell, in "New Testament Studies" makes little effort to interact with the views of White and DeMaris, brushing off the former as not "convincing" in a footnote and the latter in a paragraph. He makes no effort to answer any of the problems we have found with a "vicarious baptism" interpretation, and his interpretation of 1 Peter 4:6 is grounded in the idea of a "delayed parousia" which a preterist view renders irrelevant.
Bickmore falsely claims that I demand "absolute proof" of LDS apologists. I do not. I demand at least plausible explanations of how, for example, the doctrine was lost; LDS apologists have produced little of this. His treatment of what I said about the use of Maccabbees avoids the issue: that is, of whether indeed baptism is an efficacious rite; Bickmore's only comment on this was re John 3:5, but admittedly this is the subject of another chapter.
I noted that a passage used by Bickmore from The Shepherd of Hermas depicted baptism "of the dead, by the dead" which made it irrelevant to 1 Cor. 15:29 supporting the LDS view. Bickmore concedes this, but asserts that "this belief formed context for the vicarious baptism," but how can this be the case? If the dead are already baptized in the afterlife, what is the purpose of the vicarious baptism? It is not needed! Bickmore also supposes that those baptized "could include some who died after Christ," but in the window between 30-33, when the first Apostle died, the vast majority remain those who died before Christ -- in any event, the remainder of the point is the same.
Bickmore disclaims his uncritical use of a stake official's vision with a "So what?" -- claiming he never presented it as a "proof" of vicarious baptism. I find this doubtful, given the argumentative context within which the official's vision was described. He also complains that I do not mention the rest of his argument about correspondence between what was done on earth and what was done in heaven. I do not need to mention this: As even Bickmore admits, this does not prove anything.
Bickmore is quite determined to claim parallels in passages like those from Shepherd describing rites that are not at all like LDS BFD; for Bickmore, there is enough "ambiguity" that there "might" be some support for an LDS view. May I inform all Mormon apologists that this is the same "logic" used by certain members of the Christ-myth school who claim that parallels between i.e., Mithra and Jesus are valid: Jesus was virgin-born; Mithra was born from a rock; never mind the vast differences -- both did not require a male seed, thus a parallel exists and both are "virgin-born"! Bickmore's appeal to ambiguity opens a hornet's nest of "possibilities" that he and other LDS apologists had best be reluctant to admit. Appealing to a "lowest common denominator" by classifying these varied rites and the LDS one all under the heading "vicarious baptism" is akin to the mythers classifying Jesus, Mithra, Dionysius, Attis, etc. as "saviors" and then hopping up and down getting excited about the contrived "parallel". The use of "parallels" like that of the Marcionites, or claims that others "expanded" it, merely begs the question of originality.
Bickmore claims I "do not understand" the LDS rite (though as usual, the explanation 'why' does not actually say WHY) and claims that he knows of "several instances" in which people died before they could be baptized as desired. I rather doubt that. I noted my survey of a local "megachurch" in which NO such people were known in over 18 years. How likely is it that Bickmore knows even ONE such person?
Bickmore makes the astonishing claim that the heretical Cerinthians "would have nothing to do with such people" as those whom I say made the error of association between "no-resurrection" and baptism for the dead. Is Bickmore speaking of the same Cerinthians led by Cerinthius, who openly was in opposition to the Apostle John!?
Bickmore acknowledges that my points about the loss of the doctrine "may spur" LDS apologists to "modify some of our arguments." He admits the weakness of his original argument about it being part of a secret tradition, then postulates that it may have been quietly dropped as it became associated with heretical groups. This is a completely out of line with the normal mode of the church when heretics came to call: They did not drop things, but boldly reasserted their rights to them! This is just like the ridiculous argument used by proponents of the Gospel of Thomas that "sayings gospels" disappeared because of heretical use of them -- even though heretics produced narrative gospels, which did not cause the church to drop Mark, Matthew, Luke and John!
In closing: Bickmore's "plausible case" is a pastiche of assumptions and assertions with zero substantiation. He has no "reasonable arguments" to speak of.
Cavalcade of Civility. It seems that there are simply some LDS who cannot take as much as being told they are in error without gaining a persecution complex. Barry Bickmore is one such of these, and he displays his self-applied bandages to the limit. Little needs be said of this. Bickmore is apparently of such childish sensitivity that even my "pastiche" comment above is taken as a grave offense. Really. I find this amusing in light of my recent read of Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus, by a scholar who describes his opponents in such terms as, "ersatz scholarship," "amateur night," "therapeutic rereading," "tired rationalism," "narcissistic self-referentiality," "very little solid ground," and so on. If Bickmore is too sensitive to withstand such marginal forms of criticism, and is too hurt by his inability to have an effect on my point of view, that is his own problem. The fact is that if this were only Owen and Mosser -- the "wakeup brothers" of Christian counter-Mormon apologetics -- Bickmore would not even have his name in print at all, because these apologists do not consider his work professional enough to merit their time. If Bickmore is stunned that I cannot "admit" he said anything worthwhile in his critique, he may as well be practically devastated by those who didn't think him worth a response in the first place.
At any rate, for the present no more will be said of this until the end of this response, when we shall collect Bickmore's own cavalcade of civility into one area for reader consideration. Not that I really care myself of such matters, but the hypocrisy may certainly speak for itself -- and I am more inclined to believe that this is merely a certain, limited Mormon affectation for using persecution complexes to arouse pity than anything else.
Bickmore conveniently responds to my bullets in his own bullet fashion, so we shall do the same.
Bickmore acknowledges that he may have misunderstood "the extent to which Holding's anthropology requires that the spirit and body act in complete concert." It is not, however, a "minor point" in my paradigm. It is a very critical one. As for Bickmore never hearing of Mormons taking any other view than his own on this issue, may I remind him of Stephen Robinsons's own confessions in How Wide the Divide? that he has observed that many of his students adhere to a more "works-oriented" soteriology, versus the sort he (and Bickmore) hold which is better understood as covenantal nomism. Perhaps Bickmore would like to tell Robinson that he has also misunderstood Mormonism.
On John 3:5, Bickmore argues that "Jesus could not have been talking about baptism, because if so, Nicodemus would have immediately gone out to get baptized in some other sect." Precisely my point. John 3:5 is NOT a reference to water baptism, and that is what I argue in my own chapter; indeed Bickmore has only given us yet another reason not to think it is. Why Bickmore now wants to argue in the opposite direction is hard to conceive, but perhaps he did not read my own material from another chapter closely enough; on the other hand, he then proceeds at the end of his comments to argue once again the opposite!
In the meantime Bickmore explains away Skarsure's obvious non-mention of "ritual immersion" by noting that he was merely "paraphrasing" and now provides a quote from Skarsure mentioning it. Not that this helps him at all, because what I required was some connection made between ritual immersion and the efficacy of that immersion. I said nothing about "misreading" Skarsune and merely producing a quote where he mentions "ritual immersion" is utterly beside the point. Only someone not able to see beyond the haze of his frustration would reach the absurd conclusion that I did not think Jewish convert baptism was not describable as a "ritual immersion"! Nor does anyone claims that this immersion is not "associated with" a new birth -- the question is HOW it was associated, and Bickmore is not addressing my point on this at all.
Bickmore continues to dance around the need to show, not that "early Christian documents" thought baptism efficacious, but that Jewish Christians uninfluenced by Hellenism thought so. The LDS apologist may not simply claim "Hellenism" as a problem in section A, then deny that it had an effect in section B. That there are no documents of such Jewish Christians merely exacerbates Bickmore's problems and not my own: the procedure of Jewish thinking (Semitic Totality) is recognized by scholars, and has been related to the matter of baptism (as shown in my other chapter). It has also been sharply contrasted with dualistic Greek views, which means that it is not a huge step to say that efficacious baptism was the result of Hellenistic perceptions. Merely complaining that he can't produce any evidence is not an answer.
One would also like documentation for the claim that the " documents I just mentioned are
thought to be some of the least 'Hellenized' of the Patristic period..." and why it makes a difference. They may not be 100% Hellenized, but if they are 80% or 75% Hellenized, calling them the "least Hellenized" doesn't really make much of a difference.
Bickmore accuses me of misinterpreting his comments about "spiritualizing" baptism and suggests I look at a dictionary for the meaning of the word. I would suggest that he make himself more familiar with other religious traditions instead: His meaning of "to attribute spiritual meaning to something" while no doubt valid is also of no usefulness in context: Both sides "attribute spiritual meaning" to baptism; the question is, what that meaning IS. The means whereby a physical act may be "spiritualized" are multi-fold. If we are to believe Bultmann, "spiritualizing" may have involved no longer performing a physical act. If we are to believe Spong, it means that we attribute a certain specific meaning to it that had nothing to do with the Risen Jesus. That said, Bickmore's idea that the "no Resurrection" party at Corinth must have "spiritualized" these accounts in some way, so as not to have to take them literally or supposed the accounts to have been allegories is unlikely; the more likely response of such a party was like that of the Gnostics who turned Jesus into a phantom being who interacted with history. In that sense they would not have "deliteralized" the accounts but merely "redefined" what actually happened.
Bickmore's quote of Ehrman however does represent a likely idea of what believers themselves would have concluded about their own existence. Yet how this leads to the conclusion that "Paul could not have argued for literal resurrection using baptism in general, because the 'no Resurrection' party already had an explanation for the rite" is hard to see. If the party did have an explanation, then once again Bickmore has Paul asking a pointless question of "why" they baptize, because the answer is again painfully obvious. Indeed if the views held were as Ehrman says, it makes even more poignant Paul's questions about standing in danger, since by the party's view there ought to have been none at all since they were "transcending the needs and restrictions placed on their bodies." It seems that a dictionary and "imagination" is just about all Bickmore has left.
My point about why Paul would still need to say "still," Bickmore evades by claiming that he can't understand what I am saying due to a "sea of typos and grammatical errors." It seems Bickmore is the only reader who had such a problem. It boils down to that Bickmore has Paul asking an ineffective, idiotic question unless he asks why they are still performing a rite that by now ought to have had no meaning to them; or, at best for Bickmore, that they ought to have changed in some form of fashion.
On his attempt to emasculate the if-why connection, Bickmore erects the straw man, So the "why" clause in verse 30 has nothing to do with the "if" clause in verse 29? It is again not a matter of "nothing to do" but of the specific relationship that "if" and "why" have in the other passages I cited, addressed in particular to opponents who are being asked to explain their actions. That is not what Paul is doing in verse 29, and this continues to escape Bickmore.
No, I am not "actually claiming" that no commentators accepted ANY view of vicarious baptism, as Bickmore would have seen with some simple contextual reading: There are NONE I have found who support the LDS view who are not LDS. Given Bickmore's admission that he "jumbled Holding's statement in the footnote" let the act of misreading here speak for itself (even as he goes on to claim in the very next set of lines that he did NOT misread me!).
That said, Bickmore now wishes to hoist Horrell as one non-LDS who supports the LDS position. Perhaps fair, though hopefully Bickmore is not suggesting I should have been aware of a 2003 article when writing a 2001 book. On the other hand, Bickmore now cites two Catholic writers (from 1930 and 1949 publications!) whom he calls upon as agreeable to the LDS view, though one is not at all clear in stating that a specific baptism was performed on earth, and another, while seeming to do so, also finds a parallel in a person merely praying for another person who had not been baptized! The bottom line is that Bickmore and LDS apologists can find no solace in those who see a "vicarious baptism" in 1 Cor. 15:29 if the rationale they offer for it does not significantly agree with their own. Bickmore at best has found TWO such views, which given the innumerable explanations for this verse over history, is about as meaningful as finding one cloud out of millions that looks like one's dog!
The need to invent history to explain one's position is often painful in its manifestations. To get around Hellenistic Christians not seeing a connection between what was done on earth and what was done in spiritual realms, Bickmore offers two responses. The first is to offer the convenient hypothesis that BFD may have been invented by Jewish Christians who did see efficacy as possible in such a rite, though this grounds hard on the fact that these same "Jewish Christians" in Corinth would also have adopted a distinctly UN-Jewish understanding of the resurrection body. It stretches into far too many conveniences to demand an independent invention, adopted by unknown Jewish Christians, and adopted by Hellenists with no such proclivity.
Second, Bickmore yanks two non-explicative quotes from scholars who attest a belief in vicarious work for the dead among the Greeks. One of these cites deserves little comment; it is a secondary cite from a work written in German in 1921, which directly contradicts what is said of the matter by more recent scholars such as those writing for the recent collection of essays in Life in the Face of Death. The other, Barth's Resurrection of the Dead, refers to "vicarious Dionysian orgies for the uninitiated dead," which (even if accurate) is like using activities in a porn studio to validate actions at a community meeting. The Dionysians reportedly ate raw meat, entwined themselves with snakes, dressed in fawnskins, deserted their homes and went wandering in the wilderness, and danced themselves into insensibility. If Bickmore wants to use this group as exemplary of what other Greeks may have thought, it is he who needs some help with "background in these cultures" and not I. (As an aside, Barth offers no documentation for the claim of such practice among Dionysians.)
Bickmore still does not understand why he is being pilloried for abusing DeMaris as a source. "...what exactly are LDS writers supposed to 'DEAL with,' anyway?", he asks. It's very simple: They need to explain WHY DeMaris' explanation for the origin of the practice is WRONG, otherwise citing him is ineffectual at best and dishonest at worst. Bickmore simply needs to admit that he was caught with his trousers down trying to enlist support from someone who didn't support his position, without dealing with his arguments for his own different view (as I do in my book and elsewhere when I use sources that disagree with me on points key to the arguments I make).
On White, Bickmore claims I "misread [his] argument" (a claim so common from Bickmore, one who misreads so often himself, that it deserves a grain of salt) and offers an "explanation" which doesn't have anything to do with White's argument at all. That Paul reminded the Corinthians of their baptism into Christ does not at all change that they were declaring allegiance to apostolic parties, and so giving Apostles a prominence that only Christ deserved. There is no "stretch" here; by the rules of social stratification of this day, to put an Apostle in a place Christ rightly occupied was just as well as being baptized "into" that Apostle's name. That is obviously not how the Corinthians would think of it; Paul's point is a reductio ad absurdum of the sort he used against Peter.
Bickmore objects that I make "little or no effort to interact with the views of Horrell" which is rather absurd since Horrell offered nothing I did not already address in my chapters 4 and 5. As for early Christians teaching preterism, if Bickmore wants to debate someone on that subject, I have someone ready for him. Or, he can see if he can do any better with my seires on the subject than Farrell Till did.
Tvedtnes is defended on the grounds that what I went after him for "was not the subject of the article Holding was critiquing." Of course if one defines "subject" with the required narrowness, it's possible to make any such claim; the bottom line is, as Bickmore admits, there is no relation to BFD in Tvedtnes, though it would be hard to swallow any claim that he composed the article without a relational defense of BFD in mind. Quoting Holleman and Barth on this subject only proves that they made the same error of assumption Bickmore has. Bickmore has yet to learn how to use scholars critically.
Bickmore continues to obfuscate and generalize in order to make the Hermas passage "relevant" to BFD. To do so he continues to make a tenuous connection between a general idea that in "Jewish thought, parallel earthly and heavenly rituals were performed simultaneously" and the heavenly ritual in Hermas. It remains that this is not in the least proof for any such baptism on earth; nor indeed would it prove that a parallel ritual on earth would be immersion. "Might be" or "could be" just isn't sufficient when defending a propositional revelation whose claimed background leaves such weak evidence in the literal record.
Thus indeed contrary to Bickmore, I do not "dance around" that some who died after Christ "could have been" included in this batch. "Could have beens" strewn liberally on the floor do not require any two-steps because they are phantoms. In any event if Bickmore wants to say that Hermas "simply does not say who was included" then he needs to argue with his senior, Hugh Nibley -- whom I quoted in my book as saying that Hermas describes a vision of preaching among "those who had died before the advent of Christ." [75] The vision states that the Apostles upon death did this preaching; with James the brother of John martyred virtually a sneeze away from the resurrection of Jesus, we are left with only the tiniest number of people who were not "pre-Christ" merely chronologically -- never mind those who had never heard the message at all!
Bickmore continues to squirm under the scrutiny of having used Heber Hale's vision as some sort of validation. A revelation to confirm another revelation results in epistemic suicide where critical history is concerned; and I did not say I do not demand proof, I said I do not demand excessive proof. Bickmore in any event invites the reader to check his book and see for themselves that he didn't use Hale's vision as "proof," leading us to wonder what in the world was the point of including it in the first place if it wasn't meant to serve as validation for Bickmore's case. Perhaps he included the story merely for entertainment purposes.
On the danger of sounding like mythers who use Mithra as a parallel, Bickmore asks whether DeMaris' appeal to concern for the dead in Corinth is not "the same sort of argument". No, it is not. The parallel would be if mythers pointed to a human concern for salvation as a reason for both Mithraism and Christianity (for example) to have developed (which is not an argument they actually make); DeMaris would have been imitating their arguments only if he had found some pagan rite of BFD in Corinth and claimed that Christianity borrowed it from the pagans, as opposed to finding the source of both rites in the peculiar concern for the dead in Corinth. Bickmore should perhaps acquaint himself a little further with such sites as this one; I have sensed that Mormon apologetics could stand some exposure to this sort of thing, as it may cause them to realize some of the flaws in their own methods.
Bickmore continues to claim that he has had "several people" tell him of persons who died before receiving baptism, though as yet we do not have names, locations, or any such thing. I do concede that it is "possible that such situations might pop up from time to time in the LDS Church, which has nearly 12 million members" -- which still leaves the problem of this being 120,000 times more members than Corinth had, and 7 times the amount of time (given human lifespans). In any event Bickmore remains confused, as my use of the megachurch was in specific response to the "majority view" of 1 Cor. 15:29 held by Evangelicals and not to the Mormon interpretation. (He also expresses doubt in a note that this megachurch "considers baptism to be strictly a requirement for salvation." It does not, and that is beside the point; it is a church that heavily emphasizes discipleship and keeps close tabs on its people. If Bickmore wants to suggest that over 18 years and thousands upon thousands of people, they just happened to "miss" the numerous people who died without baptism, then his resort to convenience and contrivance of explanation can speak for itself.)
Bicmkmore then backs up his astonishing claim about the Cerinthians by saying, My point was that the Cerinthians were criticized for being an "ultra-Resurrection" party, so it seems unlikely that they would have been borrowing odd practices from the local "no Resurrection" party. If that was indeed his point, it is of absolutely no relevance to anything I ever wrote in my book. I do not require the Cerinthians to borrow anything from anyone.
When it comes to the matter of not being able to provide a scenario of how the doctrine was lost, Bickmore complains for
several lines about how he isn't appreciated enough for his efforts, says that "historians of early Christianity make arguments like this all the time" (which, if true, only makes them guilty of the same error; I do not know the writer Bickmore alludes to, but if he knows the name "Elaine Pagels" he will find the same mistakes in assumption made there, as well as by the likes of Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan), and resorts to a vague non-answer about my alleged belief in an "idealistic" Christianity where nothing ever changed. This is merely Bickmore's distractive straw man for being unable to present a coherent argument (much less the tiniest scrap of relevant evidence) for the loss of this important doctrine.
In close, we'd like to offer Barry Bickmore's Cavalcade of Civility, featuring Bickmore's civil-minded comments from his article. I frankly don't care much about these myself, but given his latest complaints the scent of Hypocrite #5 wafts heavily in from the coasts of his essay. Perhaps Bickmore could do like the Skeptics do and start collecting quotes he finds offensive, such as listing all the places the word "dung" is in the Bible, and offer those in place of arguments.
However, I have discovered that the problem with trying to conduct any sort of civil conversation with Mr. J.P. Holding is that he apparently labors under the delusion that he cannot be wrong-ever. I do not know exactly what audience he is playing for, but whoever it is, Holding does not seem willing to admit any faults in front of them.
At least, he wrote something that he called a "reply." In fact, it appears that
he barely read my critique, didn't bother looking up any of my references, and then
slapped together a "response" that misconstrues and/or dismisses without evidence, all of
my points. I gather from his other writings that Mr. Holding has considerably better
reading skills (and certainly better grammar and spelling) than he exhibits here.
However, I am writing this critique of his non-response in the hope that any of those who follow J.P.'s writings might be disabused of the notion that he actually addressed my points.
Several years ago Holding contacted me with a very rude e-mail challenging me to debate certain claims in a book I had written. Since I had seen him in action on the internet previously, I told him that I did not have time to debate him, since I was finishing my Ph.D., and even if I did I would decline because he did not seem capable of conducting a civil conversation. He proceeded to taunt me about my refusal to debate him, and posted a highly edited version of the conversation on his web site, at http://www.tektonics.org/bickmore01.html . I decided not to respond to his taunt page, as well has his reviews of my book, because I thought that any reasonable person who read my book, or even Holding's edited version of our conversation, would see that he had treated me rudely and unfairly.
The Non-Response
Holding's next nitpick really takes the cake
So, "quite simply," Holding didn't bother to look up the reference I cited before claiming that I had misread Skarsaune. One might expect more from a librarian.
Here Holding misinterprets what I was saying and then, instead of pulling out a
dictionary, assumes that my reasoning is hopelessly confused….
And so, I am convinced that with a little imagination and a dictionary, Holding
could have seen the point.
It is difficult to decipher what Holding is trying to say amid this sea of typos and
grammatical errors. However, the simple fact is that the "no Resurrection" party must
have recognized "baptism for the dead" as a legitimate practice, and this recognition was
incompatible with their disbelief in the Resurrection. There is no linguistic requirement
that Paul had to insert the word "still" in the sentence to point out this incompatibility, no
matter how diligently Holding applies his powers of wishful thinking.
While I cannot decipher what he means by saying that he couldn't find anyone advocating a "vicarious baptism"explanation "other than the LDS, who agreed that it was anything but this," I will make an attempt at translating Holding's point into English.
It seems clear that I did recognize that Holding's comment was directed toward
the majority view. I merely noted that it had some relevance to the LDS perspective, as
well (whether Holding likes it, or not). … So Holding's little "duck and cover" move here is simply his way of diverting attention away from the fact that he shot himself in the foot.
And it was no "trick" on my part to point out that Holding has badly garbled DeMaris' logic.
Once again, Holding has misread my argument
Likewise, Holding makes little or no effort to interact with the views of Horrell.
And while it is really nice that Preterism so handily relegates the idea of a delayed
parousia to the dustbin of irrelevance, I would dearly like to see Holding point out any
early Christian documents that teach Preterism. Holding interprets the New Testament in
this manner. Did any early Christian groups interpret it in a similar way? If not, how did
the knowledge of the true interpretation of such a multitude of New Testament passages
become lost so quickly?
Horrell, at least, backs up his interpretations with early Christian evidence. Holding just makes assertions.
And yes, Holding does seem to demand "absolute proof" of the LDS. For
example, Tvedtnes' argument regarding the passage from 2 Maccabbees was
straightforward and reasonable, although it does not constitute "proof," but Holding
cannot even bring himself to admit that much. So either Holding demands "proof" of the
LDS, or he is unable (for whatever reason) to recognize when a reasonable argument has
been put forward.
Is this really that hard for Holding to grasp?
But none of this impresses Holding, because I did not provide "proof." Gee, wasn't Holding just saying that he doesn't demand proof of LDS writers?
Here again, Holding's fundamentalist leanings taint his ability to distinguish arguments about probabilities and parallels from deductive arguments.
Holding seems unable to recognize the form of arguments he advocates, and castigates the Mormons for using similar reasoning.
In reality, historical inquiries are often limited to finding "parallels" and
speculating about how various beliefs, practices, and attitudes might be genetically
related. The persuasiveness of these speculations is dependent on the extent and
complexity of the parallels. But for Holding, this seems not necessarily to be the case, at
least where others are concerned. If he can find one group that uses an argument based
on parallels to draw a conclusion with which we disagree, he can use a "guilt by
association" tactic to discredit our arguments, which might be considerably more
plausible than many other arguments that have the same form.
After asking a few, it will become apparent that Holding does not understand the LDS rite. And yet, he keeps holding tight to his misunderstanding.
Even if Holding did understand the LDS rite, it seems doubtful, at this point, that
he could bring himself to admit that early Christian vicarious baptisms for deceased
catechumens could have any relevance, unless they were exact parallels with the LDS
rite.
Here again we have one of Holding's patented "guilt by association" arguments.
Here Holding ends with an example of the defining difference between reasonable
people and himself…. Holding, on the other hand, seems unable to recognize a reasonable argument when it comes from an opponent. … But since Holding is incapable of recognizing a viable argument on the part of an opponent, he appeals to some idealistic notion of how early Christianity operated.
Go Home! |
|
|
