In the newer version of Jury Chapter 1 - as opposed to what is no doubt, by now, a gladly-forgotten older version that consisted of a collection of smart remarks by uninformed friends of the Jury crew - we find a bit of an incongruency. The writer of this chapter, Farrell Till, offers a rather short and (I must admit) remarkably restrained critique of EDTAV Chapter 1. Many of us who have studied Till in the past know that this is not typical verse for him; Till is widely known as one whose polemical bark drowns out the Great Unwashed of Fundamentalism while his intellectual bite whistles idly by struggling for the "Dentucreme". However, I shall not complain about this marked difference. In a collection of essays stained by the mudslinging skepticism of Robert Price (and now, James Still), any relative recourse to “kindness” is a welcome relief. (Though not surprisingly, Till returned to usual pre-handsome-prince form in later stages of this debate, as those who progress through our debate in order will quickly find.)

This is not to say that in view of a relaxed effort by Till, I shall remain silent concerning the content of his essay. Like most of the Jury essays, it suffers from the usual presumptions regarding the purpose and use of ETDAV (Mr. Lowder’s convoluted [and now, thanks to an interview with Josh McDowell, thoroughly debunked] sophistry notwithstanding), and is marred by errors aplenty. These, of course, we shall address in our usual manner - without mercy. (heh heh...) Our essay here will offer a few general comments; readers seeking answers to specifics should follow the links given below.

The first section of concern to us contains the bald assertion by Till that he “could cite dozens of examples that dispute McDowell’s claim that the Bible is completely unified in its theme.” Citing such alleged incongruencies is, of course, is Till’s specialty; he is the editor of The Skeptical Review, a quarterly journal that focuses on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and he has also regularly debated inerrancy-related issues in various public forums. But then again, using hyperbole in place of actual argument is also a specialty of Till's, so that we may recognize this last claim as mere bluster. However, we may presume (in light of the importance of Jury to the skeptic/atheist community) that the following represents a “best of” these alleged examples. May I say that if this is the case, we have very little to worry about in the way of faith-threatening responses from Till’s quarter - and our continued debate on one aspect of this essay shows this to continue to be the case.

Till, at any rate, begins his Jury effort with rather an extraordinarily long citation from the book of Jeremiah (23:9-40) that takes up at least 1/8 of the space in his essay - all for the purpose of proving that there were prophets in OT times who disagreed with what ended up in the Bible. Now of course, we know that this was so; the key here would be to show that some “true” (legitimate) prophet was excluded from the Bible, or that a false prophet was included - and that is what Till eventually gets around to arguing, to some extent. In his effort to prove that “some dissenting views managed to survive the cutting” (thus destroying, by Till’s accounting, the unity of the Bible), Till features the following citations, which we analyze in these linked essays:

• Jehu -- Black Hat or White Hat? 2 Kings 10 vs. Hosea 1:4
• Jeremiah 7:22 and Skeptical Chauvanism
• Does God Play Favorites?
• Steel-Belted Tyre: On the Prophecy of Ezekiel
• Pharaoah Game: Did Akhenaten Influence Jewish Monotheism?
• Babylonian Genesis

Till’s comments on the circulation, translation, and survival of the Bible contain nothing of note to us. The section following, on the matter of the uniqueness of the Bible’s teachings, we have addressed to a goodly extent in other venues, with the general reply that McDowell is overstating the case for the uniqueness of the Bible's teachings. Till closes with these observations:

In many other ways, however, I’m inclined to agree with McDowell’s claim that the Bible has been unique in its influence. Of all the religious holy books that I personally know about, I know of none whose influence has been as negative and detrimental to society as the Bible has been. I know of no book that rivals it in the barbarity and cruelty of the god that it presents as the creator of the world and then has the audacity to call him supremely “good.” In that respect the Bible is certainly unique, but this is a uniqueness that biblical apologists like McDowell never want to talk about. They prefer not to mention the unique doctrine of eternal punishment in hellfire for all who do not obey even the pettiest of the Bible god’s decrees. They prefer not to mention the uniqueness of the persecutions, inquisitions, intolerance, and ignorance that the Bible has left in its historical wake. McDowell’s smorgasbord approach of selecting only those features of the Bible that present it in a favorable light and even at times flagrantly falsifying facts such as his claim of perfect “continuity” in the Bible is unworthy to be called biblical “scholarship.” About the only truth in this chapter was McDowell’s admission that the alleged “uniqueness” of the Bible “does not prove [that it] is the Word of God.”

On the above, briefly:

• I would hardly say that a directive to accept the sacrifice of God’s beloved Son is a “petty decree”!
• Why are we so obsessed with the negative and not focusing on the positive? At the very worst the positive cancels out the negative influence. Would Till argue that there have been other religious books that dwarf the Christian influence of charity throughout the centuries?
• Moreover, one may also ponder the significance of a persistent negative focus on ethics in Biblical narratives especially in the light that such observations are presented under the auspices of an objective moral standard – a standard that is “borrowed” from the Christian worldview.
• The fact that people use the Bible for wicked ends merely demonstrates a recognition that it is vested with authority. If you have a cause celebre to promote, and you were extremely wicked and/or desperate, would you also not attempt to get the backing of a premiere and/or recognized authority, by hook or by crook?
• Overall, it seems that Till has agreed with McDowell: the above paragraph admits the Bible is unique. Of course, Till observes its uniqueness from the angle of negativity. But would McDowell disagree with the idea that the Bible is unique in that manner? Would McDowell disagree that the Bible has been used for evil causes? What exactly is the point of this essay, other than to let a veteran skeptic warm up a few slices of stale bread?

Our response here has been short, but there has really not been much to respond to. Mr. Till’s efforts here, while admirable for their comparative restraint, offer little or nothing that has not been brought up and sufficiently answered before. And now for these closing observations:

It has never been clear to me - and it has remained unclear, as our debate has progressed - why Farrell Till is recognized as an expert in Biblical matters by those who admire him. He does not consult the works of others who are Biblical scholars with any regularity; he consistently adopts badly outdated positions (viz. Akhenaten); he interprets texts far outside their socio-historical context in favor of his own “plain” reading (an illegitimate practice for any literary work outside our socio-historic sphere, whether it be the Bible or a work of Shakespeare!), and he often (though not much here) resorts to heavy polemic when arguments fail him. That he is so well-respected in skeptical circles perhaps informs us of the true nature of skeptical arguments, and where they find their genesis.

At any rate, here is our closing: Till has produced a Jury essay with very little polemic, but also very little substance. We would urge Till to interact with serious and credible Biblical scholarship, for it is our opinion that he will perform no viable service for any party concerned otherwise.