James Still is the author of the Jury response to Chapter 4 of McDowell's ETDAV. But to those of us who have rambled around the Christian 'Net for a while, neither this nor Jury will be our first exposure to Mr. Still's work.

Still, as many of you know, is a primary discussion opponent of Glenn Miller, the author and maintainer of the Web page Unravelling Wittgenstien's Net - to which we have many links, and from which Tekton is linked as well. On his page, Miller provides the text of an ongoing "argument" he has had with Still, and perhaps not coincidentally, many of the points of that argument bear upon our discussions. The "argument" is currently in the second level of exchanges, with few points being answered by Still, and most being bypassed or ignored (so far) in favor of entirely new arguments or else Mr. Still's continuing insistences upon defenses of the Q/Markan priority paradigms -- subjects which we will address elsewhere on this page.

That said, here is what we have to say about Still's chapter from Jury, which has recently been issued anew, but turns out to need no further attention:

First, it should be obvious by now that this chapter, more than any other, has "suffered" from the strip-mining caused by the launching of our Tekton series. If you're looking for all that stuff now - it's all over Tekton. (Mr. Still sent me a critical letter at one time accusing me of stealing his material and arguments without credit. My reply is basically that if he thinks that his arguments are in some sense original to himself, he is either very poorly read or a person of monumental ego...I have found the same arguments he uses reported in a source as worthless as C. Dennis McKinsey's Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy.)

Second, let us remind the reader here that as of yet, the incredible majority of the arguments posted by myself and Miller against Still's major points (even with the publication of yet another essay defending the Q/Markan priority thesis) stand unanswered or ignored - and indications from personal correspondence are that Still considers it beneath his dignity to take the time to respond, which we may justly interpret as an indication, indeed, of an inability and/or unwillingness to respond.

Third and last, I would like to make the following observations about Still's Jury essay, and about his work in particular:

1. Still uncritically accepts as valid the suppositions of "fringe" scholars - including the Jesus Seminar and the "trajectories" interpretation. Related to that:

2. Frequently, Still does not properly represent, or even consider at all, the point of view of his opposition. It is evident from his bibliographies, and from his arguments with Miller, that Still refuses to consider or even take seriously any opposite points of view, preferring instead to offer psychoanalysis of their motivations. In view of complaints from many Jury members that McDowell provides a "one-sided" presentation, this is rather a sore thumb to bandage! (The "new" version of Chapter 4 is nothing of an improvement. The historical presentation remains almost exactly the same, as does the pervasive, inherent assumption that kerygma and history are exclusive provinces. [In this area, skeptics like Michael Arnheim, a professor of classical civilization who has not had his mind poisoned by extensive contact with the likes of Bultmann, is much more on the ball in recognizing that Christianity is a faith that is rooted in history: Yes, the Resurrection could mean that Jesus was the Son of God whose sacrifice paid for our sins; we have faith in that option over that of Jesus being an alien trickster, for example. But there is still the matter of the historic event of the Resurrection, whether Still, or Bultmann, or the majority of believers and alleged believers who never pick up a NT like it, or know it, or not!] Remaining also is that profound "cardboard cutout" view of human nature that is all too common in critical works of this sort. Despite the label, there is nothing at all "new" about this new version. And naturally, there is no attempt to interact with anything that I have written, implicitly or otherwise.)

3. Still has answered almost none of the arguments put to him, instead preferring to strike out on tangents or new topics and engage cheap psychology. This has not changed, either; nor has Mr. Still answered our challenge (in fact, he has obliquely refused it) to specifically answer the arguments put forth here (and by Miller) in regards to oral tradition, the Bauer thesis, the Gospel of Thomas, and all else that he has thus far ignored. Furthermore, he has continued his modus operandi of "psychological warfare" (as has been noted now by Glenn Miller) in place of actual argumentation. I have yet to see any reason to conclude that Mr. Still's work in this area deserves any more recognition than any other essay in Jury. Like the members of the Jesus Seminar, he has yet to offer anything more than ideology and Kojak-bald assertions in support of his positions, and to the extent that this is so, his work does not deserve to be taken seriously.