Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

NOTE: No link is offered to the original article because of his refusal to use my writing name.

We have referred here to McKinsey's insistence that the Bible should have anticipated geographic changes in the future, so that, to use the example McKinsey offered, Ezion-geber would have been properly reported as located where it is now -- not just where it was then. Skeptic X rightly put McKinsey on ice for this one, but it remains that Skeptic X operates the same way. The difference is that whereas McKinsey thinks the Bible should have kept up with all of the geographic, cultural, literary, social, and other changes, Skeptic X excuses the Bible on the geography part. Very civil of him, wouldn't you say?

At any rate we have a situation where, yet again, one of Skeptic X's essays was outdated before it ever hit his server. This time around Skeptic X prepared a backwards assault on the general principle we have cited from Rihbany's Syrian Christ that differences in minor details are an expression of an ancient Eastern principle that such differences "don't matter" -- and as such, the Bible (with the Gospels particularly in mind here) were written under a different semantic contract than that which we adhere to. Hence it is anachronistic to call such differences errors, for those who read the text would not have agreed.

This has become interesting because of late Skeptic X popped in our discussion at the new TheologyWeb forum here to offer some of the very same arguments we will see from his article below. (You'll see the thread was started by Stevie Carr, who since then seems to have vamoosed; Skeptic X cuts in within the first few pages, however.) Other members of the thread offered responses which we in turn will reply with here. Readers of the thread will note that Skeptic X refused or neglected to answer specific comments in reply to his arguments.

Skeptic X begins at any rate not with a direct line on the subject, but with a rambling discourse about the Bible as a witness and the need for corroboration. None of this is disagreeable to us in general principle, so we'll skip it. Then Skeptic X meanders a bit over what he heard from our fellow apologist Mark McFall on this subject, and we'll skip that as we are sure McFall can and would prefer to defend himself if necessary. We'll just go to right where Skeptic X dives headfirst into the cee-ment pond of our arguments. For a reminder here is the core of Rihbany's argument, and our conclusion from it:

There is much more of intellectual inaccuracy than of moral delinquency in the Easterner's speech. His misstatements are more often the result of indifference than the deliberate purpose to deceive. One of his besetting sins is his ma besay-il -- it does not matter. He sees no essential difference between nine o'clock and half after nine, or whether a conversation took place on the housetop or in the house. The main thing is to know the substance of what happened, with as many of the supporting details as can be conveniently remembered.

The implications of this should be clear. Gospel writers who differ on minor points such as times, number of angels at a tomb, exact locations, and so on, are signators to a semantic contract that Westerners haven't even read. We'll develop this point more with applications at a later date.

Skeptic X first offers the obligatory complaint that here we just find a quotation "in a book that offers an excuse for inconsistencies in the Bible, and then he submits it as definitive proof without making any effort at all to show that the quotation is true" -- not that Skeptic X would have the gumption, wherewithal, or ability to go out and make a counter-argument; just remember that this is no more than Skeptic X's way of manipulatively casting doubt on an argument when he doesn't have the goods to directly address it. It would be nice if we could all just go through books and yell that a given writer "submits what he says as definitive without making any effort at all to show that what he says is true" but sorry, that game is for children much younger than 70 and if Skeptic X wants to rebut it, he needs to show us that Rihbany's claim is wrong. As long as a claim has a reasonable semblance of being true, one is obliged to address its particulars. If Rihbany had said, "Easterners speak the way they do because aliens make them do it that way" then I wouldn't blame any Skeptic or critic for just rolling on the floor. However, not a word of what Rihbany says here is unreasonable or outrageous, and Skeptic X has no excuse for just waving him off.

But after giving his readers a brief bio of Rihbany, Skeptic X hauls up the first bale of hayfever:

The primary problem with Rihbany's key to understanding biblical discrepancies is that it completely ignores the widely accepted Christian premise that the books of the Bible were inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent entity. Hence, when Rihbany spoke of biblical writers who knew "the substance of what had happened" and then presented "as many of the supporting details as can be conveniently remembered," he, to borrow one of his own terms, conveniently forgot that these writers were presumably not speaking on their own but were being guided by an omniscient deity, who would have known all of the supporting details of "what had happened." Any errors or even ambiguities, therefore, would not have been the fault of the writers but of the omniscient deity who was allegedly guiding them as they wrote.

How interesting. Now let's reword that as though from the mouth of a McKinsey:

The primary problem with X's key to understanding biblical errors in geography is that it completely ignores the widely accepted Christian premise that the books of the Bible were inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent entity. Hence, when X spoke of biblical writers who knew where a city like Ezion-geber was in their own day, he conveniently forgot that these writers were presumably not speaking on their own but were being guided by an omniscient deity, who would have known that Ezion-geber's geography would change. Any errors or even ambiguities, therefore, would not have been the fault of the writers but of the omniscient deity who was allegedly guiding them as they wrote.

Of course it's provincial enough already for Skeptic X to speak of what the writers did as a "fault" -- being that he is still saying this from his modern, Western-oriented perspective -- but it remains that it's the same argument as McKinsey, with only a different target. Meanwhile we're still waiting for Skeptic X to answer Glenn Miller's implied question of how it is that he personally is privileged to know, or authoritative enough to say, what an omni-max deity would or ought to do in such contexts. IOW we're still waiting for Skeptic X to explain why God ought to have kissed his rear end.

Skeptic X rightly notes that I will see this as just a Church-of-Christ concept of "mechanical dictation," but he has an answer, so he thinks, from the Bible:

Skeptic X 54:6 And God said, I will inspire by mechanical dictation.

Oh no, silly me. Actually he cites:

Matthew 10:16 "Behold, I send you [the disciples] out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. 17But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. 18You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. 19But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; 20for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you."

Well, that's nice. Did you see the words "mechanical dictation" in there? I didn't. Did you see "I will take over your brains like a teletype machine"? Neither did I. But it runs down to that Skeptic X has done nothing more than the same CoC flashbulb attempt to dizzy his gullible readers, by assuming that what is meant here is what we would regard as mechanical inspiration. "This passage is claiming much more than that the disciples would be speaking 'the substance of what had happened' and giving 'as many supporting details as they could conveniently remember,'" Skeptic X gulps. "It was claiming that the disciples were not the ones actually speaking but the Holy Spirit who would be speaking through them." Yeah, and -- what? "That is about as 'mechanical' a view of 'inspiration' as one could imagine. It was claiming that the disciples would be sort of ventriloquist dummies through whom the Holy Spirit would speak." I tried hard, folks, but I still don't see that anywhere. I could add as well that the "not" here sounds like yet another example of the sort of negation idiom we tried to educate Skeptic X about elsewhere, since even under the "dummy" interpretation, obviously the "you" does speak, using the "you"'s vocal chords and tongue and mouth. One can say "I will tell you what to say" to a newscaster and hand him a script; one can also say the same to someone and give them general advice: "Tell him about your trip to Spain" -- leaving you to fill in the details. Once again it's a case of Skeptic X running too fast and ending up in Tampa Bay.

Skeptic X rings up a similar text, Luke 21:12, and the answer is the same. So likewise for his cite of Luke 1:67, Zacharias' prophecy:

Luke 1:67 Now his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying: 6 Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, For He has visited and redeemed His people, 69 And has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David, 70As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, who have been since the world began....

"Now if Zacharias was 'filled with the Holy Spirit' as he spoke, I doubt that Luke meant for his readers to understand that Zacharias was speaking the 'substance of what had happened' and then giving 'as many supporting details as he could conveniently remember.'" Well, no, certainly not in this case, since Zach wasn't even reporting an event where anything "happened" but was offering a paean of praise for his good fortune. But even so Skeptic X says, "If that is all that there was to the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit, then why was God even bothering to fill his prophets and writers with the Holy Spirit?" Well heck -- the duty is in the doing, isn't it? A little promoting to write a gospel, or compose an oracle; and the ripple effect goes on from there. Once again as usual Skeptic X seems to think it has to be "all or nothing" when it comes to anything he can get his mitts on.

OK, here's another:

Acts 28:25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: "The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, 26saying, 'Go to this people and say: "Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; And seeing you will see, and not perceive; 27 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them."'

Skeptic X mumbles, "Now was Paul right when he said that the Holy Spirit had spoken these words through the prophet Isaiah, or was this just something Isaiah had said on his own, telling 'the substance' and giving 'as many supporting details as he could conveniently remember'?" That category error is still rearing its ugly head, no? Isaiah wasn't giving a historical account; he was delivering a prophetic oracle. Apparently as well Skeptic X thinks that God can only inspire one way; anything else is just a lite. But of course we know well enough how it is: As noted above, one may direct by a script, or one may direct by general instructions. If the end product was sufficient to spread the word to all reasonable persons who aren't demanding that God kiss their rear end and polish their boots, what exactly is the problem?

Skeptic X adds on 2 Peter 1:20's note that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation," and it's still that same category error. The Gospels are not "prophecy" -- they are narrative, specifically ancient biographical narratives. When Skeptic X gets his analogies straight and his ducks in a row, maybe we can talk. He'll also need to get out of that black and white outfit he's wearing when it comes to means of inspiration.

Skeptic X next offers a diversion trying to reply to the specific charge that Jesus' "move mountains" comment is intended hyperbolically, not literally. Why? This one is worth two laughing faces:

In verses 18-20, Jesus had pronounced a curse on a fig tree that didn't have figs on it in, and immediately the fig tree "withered away." It is difficult to see how anyone could think that this was just a symbolic or hyperbolic withering, so the fact that the tree literally withered becomes important in understanding the rest of the passage, because Jesus used this supernatural feat to tell his disciples that if they had faith, they would be able to do the same thing and even greater things: "If you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, 'Be removed and be cast into the sea," it will be done."

Oh. So in essence, if one uses a figure of speech to illustrate a lesson, and does so after performing a literal action, then by extension, it isn't a figure of speech. Brilliant. So if a football coach tells his team, "You'll not only beat these guys like you did the guys last week, you'll cream them!", it means that the coach is about to pass out those little containers of sour cream that comes with your dried-up baked potato at the Western Sizzlin'. Just glad the coach didn't say "murder" or "blow away."

It's a hard lesson for Skeptic X to learn, but it needs to be said again: genre, genre, genre. The fig tree withering is part of a narrative discourse, something describing what happened. The saying of Jesus comes from the mouth of one in an Eastern culture where one telling you to get out of his sight will tell you to "pave the sea". Skeptic X's fundaliteralism is not the interpretive template here.

Next up Skeptic X winds up with the Matthew 19 admonition for the rich young ruler to sell everything and give it to the poor. I can't say why Skeptic X rings this one in. No one thinks this is hyperbolic language, though I would imagine as well that there is some hyperbole, otherwise we'd expect the fellow to have followed instructions by showing up naked as a jaybird. In any event, Skeptic X is arguing with only himself on this one -- and like McKinsey, seems oblivious to the point that this instruction was only given to one particular young man and wasn't prescribed as a universal through time and space.

For a bit then Skeptic X picks his banjo a little about how contextual research into works like Rihbany's is just a case of looking for excuses, and plays the usual juice harp strum where he can't discern stated idiom from narrative. Rihbany's work, he says, is just "an apologetic effort of his time" done in an effort to explain away inconsistencies of the Bible. What's missing of course is his argument showing that indeed Easterners were not given to such means of expression. That we'll wait until doomsday for; it's obviously much easier for Skeptic X to just implicitly call Rihbany a liar and be done with it, than it is for him to actually get off his rear end and prove otherwise. The pattern remains the same as always.

It is here at last that we get to Skeptic X's trump card for this issue, the one which has already transmorgified from an ace of spades to a Joker thanks for Skeptic X's diligent efforts on the TheologyWeb forum to undermine his own credibility. It's a shame, he says, that we and Rihbany "were not around when Jewish leaders were trying to decide which of their sacred books were 'canonical.'" We'll just let Skeptic X shoot his own mouth off, right into his foot, and then let what was said on the forum in reply be aired:

Contrary to what Rihbany claimed, Jewish leaders, at that time, were very concerned over inconsistencies and discrepancies in books like Ezekiel. They were, in fact, so concerned over discrepancies in Ezekiel that this book was almost rejected outright. Only through the efforts of Hananiah ben Hezekiah, a first-century AD rabbi, was this book spared the rejection that was accorded apocryphal and pseudepigraphic writings. According to Jewish tradition, ben Hezekiah retired to his chamber with 300 jars of oil for his lamps and did not come out until he had harmonized to his satisfaction the discrepancies in Ezekiel that had been troubling his rabbinic cohorts.

Skeptic X fuddles for a bit on the idea that I should have been aware of this, and while I wasn't, I didn't need to be. As before Skeptic X is drawing an impaired analogy to say nothing of doing homework.

On page 4 of the thread, "Hamster", a Tekton reader, replied with the correct answer:

Ben Hezekiah worked to solve contradictions to the Law and theology as described in the Torah, which were considered more important than incidental details in a report such as: {The} difference between nine o'clock and half after nine, or whether a conversation took place on the housetop or in the house.

That's sad. Skeptic X wasted all that space telling us about Hezzy, and it turned out to be irrelevant. Not surprisingly Skeptic X never answered this. But the single sentence makes almost his entire article out of date.

On page 5 participant "GrayPilgrim" added:

Hmmm...the Talmud, dating to what, at the earliest AD 225 (which is actually the dating for the Mishna's compilation by Yahudah ha Nasi) to the 7th century AD (according to Jacob Neusener Invitation to the Talmud, has this beritha from b. Menahot 45a about the questionable nature of Ezekiel. Now let us look at Zimmerli's commentary on Ezekiel, vol. 1. He in speaking of other mentions of Ezekiel in Baba Batra 15a says:

This text, however, can scarcely support critical conclusions about genuine recollection retained here of a process of editing the book of Ezekiel," Walther Zimmerli. Ezekiel 1. Hermeneia, trans. Ronald E. Clements. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979, p. 74)

I picked Zimmerli because he does not hold to inerrancy just so that you could see that you have to imagine errors that even critical scholars do not hold.

So lets see if there are any earlier attestations to the canonicity of the text. First is Ezekiel part of the LXX? Yup! Now lets look at Qumran. Ezekiel was such an important document to this community that it informs the Rule of the Community, the Damascus Document and the War Scroll. So this "endangered book" is freed from that peril. Oh and what were those inconsistencies? It failed to support and validate the Temple sacrificial system as the traditions of the elders had grown to revere. It was not so much internal inconsistencies or even contradictions between it and the Pentateuch as it was advocating a new form of worship, for instance the lack of separation between Jews and Gentiles in the Temple precincts. The idea that God would include Gentiles in the covenant community was appalling to the Rabbis. Now let us take up the maxim of Dr. Michael Swartz of The Ohio State University, when we read the Mishna and Talmud we must always keep in mind the anti-Christian polemic of the rabbis [Swartz is Jewish]. So, now let us think what is a central teaching to Christianity…ahh, "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile," so this 'inconsistency' would seem to legitimate a Christian claim and show how it was anticipated in the OT, thus the rabbis would not exactly be found of this. However, if you would have only researched the polemical nature of the Talmud [Mishna + Gemarra] you would have seen this.

I ask that you make cogent arguments and fully research them in light of the Jewish-Christian polemics of the time. Critical scholars have held for over a century that the prophetic corpus was closed well prior to the first century AD. Even the old theory that the Writings [Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1&2 Chronicles] were closed at Jamnia in 90 AD has been rethought so that it now seem that the counsel there was more recognizing what had been the long accepted shape of the OT. It's funny, you are the first person I have ever heard of dating the shaping of the canon, in regards to the prophets, to the first century AD. Moreover, while a previous generation of scholars linked the collections as representing a rough correspondence to their date, this has been shown to be a fallacious argument.

X ground out this reply on page 5:

Am I trying to have a serious discussion with someone who doesn't know that the Talmud existed long before AD 225? This is sort of like biblical manuscripts, GP. A copy that dates to, say, AD400 doesn't mean that this book didn't exist before then. By tradition the Talmud existed long before, but the period of the Talmud [Tannaim] dates from the 1st century BC, in the time of Hillel and Shammai, and ended around AD 200. There were actually two Talmuds: the Palestinian and the Babylonian.

Was Ezekiel respected in the BC era? Yes, it was, but it came under heavy attack in the 1st century AD when Jewish leaders were trying to decide what should be official or "canonical" books. This was when Hannaniah ben Hezekiah came to the rescue with his 300 jars of oil and worked in isolation to harmonize the book of Ezekiel.

Another forum member pointed out that X has confused "compiliation" with existence of the Talmud. We may note as well that X ignored most of GP's comments. GrayPilgrim replied:

Yes I know that it eixsted prior to its being put in written form. However, my point was that using a polemical document does not always suffice as a great form of evidence. And no duh that there were to Talmuds. The Palestinian which was shorter was less respected than the more expansive Babylonian. the "b." prior to Menahot implies that this beritha comes from the more expansive Babylonian Talmud.

...again you are the first person I have ever heard that states that the canon was that fluid concerning the prophetic corpus (Joshua, Judges, Samuels, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Book of the 12) in the first century AD. I actually enjoy reading about hte history of this stuff so that is what makes it extra fascinating to me. And so as I posted in my earlier post:

This text, however, can scarcely support critical conclusions about genuine recollection retained here of a process of editing the book of Ezekiel," Walther Zimmerli. Ezekiel 1. Hermeneia, trans. Ronald E. Clements. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979, p. 74)

To X's point about concerns to reconcile the text:

Yes they were concerned. With this post I am stating that using fallacious history does not support a position it only weakens it. So I still think you have failed to answer any of the questions posted by others. Moreover, in a forum of htis style it is generraly expected that people answer questions as well as ask them. You show a lack of this common courteosy.

X never replied to this. He later used the excuse of being new the particular format of forum, though he had been doing quite well for several pages. Be sure and also check page 8 where GP explains to Skeptic X that yes, study of dead languages can indeed reveal new insights. X ignored this and preferred instead to correct people's grammar. See also later pages where Skeptic X tries to rationalize his "90% of the website" gaffe.

In his next set Skeptic X tells us that of late we've been trying "to explain away biblical discrepancies by arguing that 'Jewish exegetical methods' remove the discrepancy, but Jewish 'exegetical methods' were nothing more than attempts to explain obvious problem texts that were embarrassing to the claim that the Jewish scriptures were divine in their origin." I'm not sure what Skeptic X is on about here. The appeal to such methods was made in relation to understanding the NT use of the OT in Messianic prophecy, not with respect to "explaining discrepancies". There may well be some way it was used for that, and I know of it being used in later Jewish lit, but that's not why I rang it up. Skeptic X produces a long quote from the Big Cambridge Bible Book on this, but it's not addressing anything I've appealed to this concept for.

In closing, Skeptic X blows the whale into the pipe by asking of myself attention to Biblical "inconsistencies,": "If they don't matter to him, why does he spend so much time trying to show that the inconsistencies don't exist?" The answer is of course that we live in a different world now, as Skeptic X can't seem to grasp. And we in turn ask the same question another forum member, spl_cadet, asked of X: "If he skips so much of your arguments and rebuttals, why do you bother responding to his stuff?"

X might find his answer if he looks hard enough.